USA vs. CSA

[Jeff Weaver]

Now the whole question resolves around "many" and "voluntary." No doubt there were many who served the Confederate government in various forms, but most were conscripts. Slave labor built most of the fortifications of the Confederacy when there was time to get them there, around Richmond and Atlanta for example. There were numerous "drafts" of slave hands by the Confederate government for slaves to perform labor in this way.

Slaves or African Americans who served in the Confederate army went where their masters told them to go. Some went willingly as there are cases of warm friendships between some masters and slaves. Most of these were in the form of "body servants." You will find a few (1-10) in a good number of units, but these fellows were not legally allowed to carry a weapon. Most regimental structures in the Confederacy had about 1800 men over the course of four years, so on the order of 1/2 of one percent. Some did during the heat of battle, but it wasn't the norm. Other slaves went into the army as cooks or other non-combat roles (blacksmiths, wagoneers, etc). How many would have done so had their masters not ordered it, hard to say, but it approaches zero.

Monique, I dont know if it is revisionist history or not, there were some (very few) cases of African-Americans serving in the Southern Army willingly, but, your friend's point is basically valid. There were a couple of units raised in Lousiana early in the war composed of free men of color who offered themselves to the Confederate cause, but were rejected. Three or four African-American units were recruited in March 1865, with the proviso they would be free when the war was over, but that was it.

Jeff

 

[Dr. Bob]

Sadly, the Confederate myopia against arming negroes was such that it did not allow full regiments to be raised until far too late in the War. Blacks did volunteer (no coercement) but it was too little, too late.

The Federals, desperately seeking NOT to have to draft, raised notable all-black units (white officers, of course). They were treated as second class, paid less, and given menial duty.

By the end of the War, 1 in 10 soldiers in blue were negroes; it was closer to 1 in 100 in butternut or gray.

 

[blackbird]

churchboy says, "Unlike the 13 colonies the CSA lost their war . . ."

I mentioned to a dude I was talking with--"The last flag that Lee waved in Grant's face was white!!"

Well, that shut the conversation down---and he left madder than a lighted stick of dynamite!! To this day I don't understand why folks get all mad and miffed off about the CSA loosin'! Give me a break---they lost---fair and square---just like Germany! We'll never know what it would have been like to live in a continueing CSA----but I don't have to worry about that, do I??

 

[KenH]

Well, here the flags I am waving in your face, blackbird

-

 

[blackbird]

The last thing that Grant told Lee was

"Tell your men to lay their weapons down! The war is over!!"

I like the cyber-neon flag presentation, Ken! But your thoughts of resurrecting the CSA are futile and if you have a weapon by your side---I would favor if you carry it "Chamber breeched--and clip-less!"

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>>>19 out of 20 CSA soldiers never owned a slave. They were fighting AGAINST federalism that was trying to enslave THEM!

State's Rights was/is/will be RIGHT.<<<<<<<<

There is nothing intrinsically good about state's rights. Most CSA soldiers may not have owned slaves but the key point is that their political leadership strongly supported slavery. There is no doubt that the war was fought by the southern leadership to defend slavery. The southern political leaders published their reasons for secession at the start of the war and all these published reasons mention slavery as a major reason.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>JesusandGeorge...that's HIS opinion. Many others did not feel that way. And it's strange that many blacks VOLUNTARILY fought to save the confederacy.<<<<<<<

A handfull of blacks may have fought volutarily for the south, but much larger numbers fought for the north. To be more exact, approximately 200,000 black soldiers were in the northern armies and 38,000 died, mostly from disease. I would be willing to bet that no more than 1,000 blacks fought VOLUNTARILY for the north. In fact, the policy of the south was against this.

 

[Salty]

What exactaly did the CSA say about Slavery? Check out the Constitution of the CSA:

Section IX.

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

Any comments?

Salty

PS, I would have made a direct link, but it didnt work.

 

[rsr]

It was impractical. The Royal Navy was actively enforcing enforcing a ban against the slave trade; besides, the British public would have been repelled by an active transatlantic slave trade.

In addition, reopening the trade would have lowered the value slaves in the CSA's internal slavae trade.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Tanker:
It is ironic that many southern conservatives would fight at the drop of a hat to repel encroachments on individual liberty far less serious than slavery and yet somehow find it very hard to be critical of slavery, which must be one of the most terrible attacks on liberty that it is possible to imagine. There is an inconsistency there they don't seem to recognize. Maybe it is because in regard to slavery, it is not their liberty that was being taken away.

Perhaps the reason no one is condemning slavery is that it's assumed that any right thinking person would find the practice barbaric, thus not being necessary to criticize.

 

[Benfranklin403]

From the CSA constitution:

"The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

Any comments?"
..................................................

They were just confirming the status quo. If you mean by quoting this that they were against slavery you are mistaken.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by blackbird:
But your thoughts of resurrecting the CSA are futile

Judging by the Confederate red color of the vast majority of States and counties on the election map of November 2, I think we are doing pretty well at beginning to see the principles of States' rights being resurrected in these United States. But much work lies ahead.

 

[KenH]

Slavery was ended without warfare in every other nation except one. It would have ended peacefully in these United States of America and these Confederate States of America as well if the Yankees had not invaded the CSA.

 

[blackbird]

That shot at Fort Sumter?? Blackbird has done a full scale investigation---without the help of CNN and company---

That shot was intended to "Scare" the Rebs!! Besides, it only "knicked" the fella it hit---only a flesh wound---not even a Million Dollar one!!!

The Rebs that wound up being related to Blackbird turned out to be

's!!!!

 

[mioque]

Ken
"Slavery was ended without warfare in every other nation except one."
"
To repeat something I said earlier.
One important lesson I learned on this board:"If other countries do something differently than America, THEY...MUST...BE...WRONG!!!!"
On a more serious note, the simple fact is that a lot of things work differently in the States for some weird reason.
If the CSA had survived, it could have been proudly into slavery to this very day. It's citizens dissmissing any criticism of the practice as an evil internationalist plot/decadent European ploy/dastardly yankee scheme to undermine this fine American institution.

 

[AVL1984]

Not necessarily, mioque. Many in the South didn't approve of slavery and let it be known. They did however believe in the right of the South to secede as it involved states right and not the right of the Federal government to rule over the states.

 

[mioque]

"Many in the South didn't approve of slavery and let it be known."
"
Just like many today in the States don't approve of the deathpenalty, abortion being legal, the US being party to international treaties and marihuana being a controlled substance. Nonetheless all these are features of American life.

 

[AVL1984]

Many of the international treaties are not in the interest of the USA, nor are they in the interest of many other countries, but rather a ploy by the United Nations to increase it's control over all of the nations on earth....but that is neither here nor there....the subject of the thread is the USA vs. CSA. The fact remains that the USA Federalist Gov't of Abraham Lincoln won the war, bringing the umbrella of ever growing Federal control over the states, imposing it's will on the states instead of the other way around.

 

[Benfranklin403]

There is a great deal to be said for federal supremacy. States quite often violate the rights of individuals and minorities. The federal government has shown itself to be capable of defending individual rights to a greater extent than the states. I used to work for EPA. The state organizations involved in the same type of work always looked to the EPA for leadership and most of the time, the EPA could provide it. Except for a very few populous states, such as California, state environmental protection agencies did not have the same level of skill as the national government.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>Judging by the Confederate red color of the vast majority of States and counties on the election map of November 2, I think we are doing pretty well at beginning to see the principles of States' rights being resurrected in these United States. But much work lies ahead.<<<<<

I don't agree. The election cannot be considered a victory for states' rights by any stretch. It was not even an issue in the election.