[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: The Myth of Black Confederates
Source: las.illinois.edu
URL Source: http://www.las.illinois.edu/news/2013/confederates/
Published: Sep 1, 2013
Author: Doug Peterson
Post Date: 2015-06-23 16:10:38 by Pericles
Keywords: None
Views: 11694
Comments: 55

The Myth of Black Confederates

LAS professor rejects myth that blacks fought for rebels in large numbers.

Patrick R. Cleburne, a prominent general in the Confederate Army of Tennessee, could see what was happening in the South in late 1863. Southern troops were outnumbered, soldiers were demoralized, and the institution of slavery was collapsing. So on January 2, 1864, Cleburne rode through a sleet-driven night in northern Georgia to present an audacious proposal to nearly a dozen Confederate generals.

He proposed that the Confederate States of America offer freedom to military age male slaves who were willing to fight for the South.

“Most of the generals denounced him,” says Bruce Levine, University of Illinois history professor and author of Confederate Emancipation and The Fall of the House of Dixie.

Cleburne’s proposal was overwhelmingly rejected, for secessionist states were not about to undermine the system of slavery that they were fighting to defend. But despite this clear disdain for the idea of arming African Americans, Levine says that over the past 30 years there has arisen a myth that black soldiers did fight for the Confederacy in massive numbers—tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands, according to some accounts propagated online.

According to Levine, “The claims among modern romanticizers of the Confederacy are intended to bolster more fundamental claims—that African Americans identified with the Confederacy, that slaves were content with being slaves, and that the war had nothing to do with slavery.”

The problem is that the accounts of massive involvement of blacks in the Southern army are false, he says.

Levine says the Confederate army had a strict policy that if you were not certifiably white, you could not be a soldier in its ranks. However, in the early years of the Civil War, many slave owners did bring their servants into the Confederate army to carry equipment for them, and clean and take care of their clothes and horses. In addition, the Confederacy forced many slaves and free blacks in the South to labor for the war effort, building rail breastworks, driving wagons, burying the dead, and serving as nurses.

“On occasion, a slave might have even picked up a gun and taken a shot at the Yankees, proving how loyal and dependable he was,” Levine says. But this level of involvement is a far cry from tens of thousands of armed black soldiers marching in defense of the Confederacy.

What’s more, Confederates discovered that if they placed black laborers too close to Union lines, they ran the risk of African Americans fleeing to the other side; therefore, many slave owners stopped bringing along their black servants during the second half of the war.

Levine notes that there were two militias in the South made up of free African American soldiers—one in Mobile, Ala., and the other in New Orleans. But these were state militias, not part of the regular army, and they did not see serious action on behalf of the South. And numerous members of the “Native Guards” of New Orleans immediately switched allegiance to the Union when the Yankees occupied the city.

The Myth of the Black Confederates is a relatively new phenomenon, arising after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, Levine says. The notion of African Americans fighting in large numbers for the South was never suggested in the immediate aftermath of the war because white veterans would have been still alive to shoot down the idea. “White Confederate soldiers would have taken it as an insult to have served in the same army with the same status as a black soldier,” he says.

As evidence that black men fought heroically for the South, neo-Confederates today will sometimes dig up photos of black servants dressed in military uniforms. But according to Levine, “Some servants were dressed in military uniforms because that was the kind of clothing available in the army.” It didn’t mean they were real members of those army units, he says.

Levine says that when the Confederacy was on its last legs, in March of 1865, the Confederate congress did pass an eleventh-hour law by a razor-thin margin, allowing for the enlistment of black soldiers. But even that law freed no one.

“The Southern government invited masters to volunteer their slaves for the army, but first they would have to emancipate them because Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee knew that still-enslaved black men would certainly not fight for the South,” he says. “The overwhelming majority of masters declined that invitation.”

In the final weeks of the war, the South tried to recruit black soldiers in a handful of states, he says, “but nothing happened anywhere, except Richmond and Petersburg, where they apparently raised about 60 black soldiers in the Confederate army, who then saw virtually no action.”

In contrast, once black soldiers were accepted into the Union army in 1863, roughly 190,000 to 200,000 fought for the North. Even more telling, he adds, an estimated 80 percent of those soldiers were slaves and free blacks recruited by the Union army in slave states.

Editor’s note: We have included a new image and caption at the top of the story and an updated caption for the second image—February 2014

By Doug Peterson

September 2013

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

#1. To: Pericles (#0)

The Civil War was fought over slavery.

The South seceded and proclaimed, in its articles of secession and constitution, that it was about slavery. The leaders said so.

Lincoln said it wasn't, but when the war got rough and recruitment lagged, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation for foreign policy and domestic political reasons. Northern recruitment became much brisker once the war WAS about slavery, and large numbers - a couple of hundred thousand - of Union troops were black.

The Confederacy was about slavery, and never had any intention of freeing any slaves.

States rights? Sure: the "right" of states to have slaves, and to extend slavery westward.

Of course the North wasn't innocent at all either. After all, for four score and seven years before that, the Northerners were mostly willing to tolerate slavery, and in the decade before the war, the North enforced the Fugitive Slave Act.

Truth is, America was founded on the principle of equality, and slavery stood out as an increasingly intolerable cancer on that principle.

Why Americans still need to fight over this TODAY is a bit of a mystery. Slavery was bad, the South stood up for it, lost, was defeated, slavery ended. Move on.

Of course the slavery story had a bookend: segregation. In truth, the "badges" of slavery didn't really start to disappear until the forced end of segregation in the 1960s, and the "incidents" - the massive economic differential of coming from the impoverished black slave class - still have not disappeared. Economic segregation remains.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-06-23   16:36:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13, Pericles (#1)

The Civil War was fought over slavery.

Had the Union won a total victory on day one, how would that have enabled the Union to free the slaves?

If a total victory in one day could not enable freeing the slaves, what was the goal of the war when it started?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-23   19:38:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#9)

Had the Union won the battle on day one, the slaves would not have been freed.

The South seceded over the issue of slavery. They believed that Lincoln was going to trample their rights to slavery, so they went for the door. That was their motivation.

Lincoln's motivation at the start of the war was to preserve the Union. He rejected any notion of a unilateral right to secede, and refused to pull forces out of the South.

The Southerners fired on Fort Sumter, starting the armed rebellion. Lincoln responded in kind by sending in the forces to suppress the rebellion.

Bull Run was a terrible shock, followed by others.

America itself was not a good country. It had slavery and fugitive slave laws.

God saw to it that the war was prolonged sufficiently to exhaust the original purpose. To maintain the momentum to win the war, it had to be broadened to the issue of slavery. That, then, caused the end result that neither party intended at the outset of the war.

The South, in its own declarations, seceded to preserve slavery as the pillar of Southern society. Besides land, slaves were the single greatest property value in America.

The North's goals changed as the war progressed and deepened. Lincoln's simple suppression of rebellion became immensely complicated because the Southerners were full of fire and ready, willing and eager to fight for their country and its slave culture. "Preserving the Union" wasn't enough. To really harm the South, the slaves had to be freed, so they were as those lands were liberated, or conquered (depending on your perspective).

By the end of the war, it was about abolition. Lincoln made the point of refusing to negotiate with the Southern peace feelers until he got his amendment.

Once it came to the end and it was clear that the Union would win, Lincoln went all-in to formally abolish slavery, and succeeded in doing so. His war aims increased as the war went on.

So, the South started wrong and stayed wrong and was destroyed. The North started wrong and gradually found its way to the right answer, which was to destroy slavery completely and for good, and to change the Constitution itself to end the debate.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-06-23   22:13:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Had the Union won the battle on day one, the slaves would not have been freed.

How can the alleged purpose of a war not be achieved by immediate and total victory? The alleged purpose is not possible.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-24   0:58:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: nolu chan (#21)

How can the alleged purpose of a war not be achieved by immediate and total victory? The alleged purpose is not possible.

You're too smart to be playing such games. Stop it.

The PURPOSE of the war was for the South to secede from the Union and become an independent nation.

The South started the war by firing on a federal fort and calling up an army to resist the national authorities.

The Union did not initiate a war, but was flying its flags over its territories, and replenishing its forces. The South wanted them gone and attacked, so that the South could escape Union control, so that the Southerners could live the way they wanted to, specifically, to preserve slavery intact and untrammeled.

That was the PURPOSE of the war. The war was started, by the South, to get away and preserve slavery.

The Union fought the war, at start, for the same reason that the police fight gangs during riots: the re-establish government control. The South claimed they had seceded, but the Federal government did not accept that. It was simply a political posture UNTIL the South started shooting at federal officials, THEN it was a real insurrection which had to be put down by the authorities.

The Union at the start of the war was intervening in an insurrection zone to maintain the authority of the government. But then the government lost, battle after battle. Things went badly and the South became a real power, with a chance of actually pulling off a secession.

The Union's goal was always the same: end the insurrection and re-establish government control over all United States territory - to defeat the Southern rebels who started the war.

But the means by which this was to be accomplished changed as the war expanded and became longer and deadlier.

Because the PURPOSE of the war was for the South to GET AWAY, the only way that purpose could be achieved was for the South to actually get away. The Union's goal was to stop that. The means of stopping that became more and more aggressive, and with the hardening of political attitudes in the North - the only people left in the federal government - the Northern politicians made it a point to rip up slavery by the roots because the South had rebelled over it. Remove slavery as a cause, and the South will never rebel again.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-06-24   10:07:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 33.

#34. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#33) (Edited)

Once the war started and all those slaves started heading for Union lines the idea they would return the slaves back into the slave holders who were rebelling was untenable. Also, even if north and south did not go to war, what were the slave holders thinking? The blacks would have have an even greater reason to escape north because if the confederacy split off from the Union the north would not return the slaves back. The south would have had to become one large armed slave camp to keep slaves from fleeing north to freedom.

Pericles  posted on  2015-06-24 10:25:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

The Union's goal was always the same: end the insurrection and re-establish government control over all United States territory - to defeat the Southern rebels who started the war.

The Southern States thought they had the right to leave the Union. The North was determined to force their view on them.

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-06-24 11:25:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

You're too smart to be playing such games. Stop it.

The PURPOSE of the war was for the South to secede from the Union and become an independent nation.

The South started the war by firing on a federal fort and calling up an army to resist the national authorities.

The Union did not initiate a war, but was flying its flags over its territories, and replenishing its forces. The South wanted them gone and attacked, so that the South could escape Union control, so that the Southerners could live the way they wanted to, specifically, to preserve slavery intact and untrammeled.

The Precise Date and Act of Lincoln that Initiated the War, and Why the Union Fought the War

Citing the Official Statements and Declarations of the Federal Government

by nolu chan
March 4, 2011

The looming anniversary of the start of the War of the Rebellion (the official name, also known as the American Civil War) has brought on another onslaught of claims that the war was fought over slavery, and as proof there is an endless regurgitation of part of a document setting forth the immediate causes of secession, a declaration that the point is thereby proven, followed by a triumphant harumph.

What these writers absolutely never, never, ever do is cite and quote the Federal records that state precisely when the war started, the act of Abraham Lincoln that started it, and the proclamation detailing, in fine, the Federal justification for the war. Surely, if this standard applies to the seceding states who spoke of peaceful secession, it must apply even moreso to the Federal documents that speak directly and explicitly to actual war and its justification.

There is irrefutable evidence from the official records of the United States Government specifically addressed the precise start of the war and gave the specific justification therefor. Amazingly, what denotes the start of the war is an act of Abraham Lincoln and slavery is not mentioned.

The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).

The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the war started with Lincoln's proclamation of a blockade on April 19, 1861, and it ended with a proclamation that that war had closed with Texas on August 20, 1866.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in the present case is when did the rebellion begin and end? In other words, what space of time must be considered as excepted from the operation of the statute of limitations by the war of the rebellion?

Acts of hostility by the insurgents occurred at periods so various, and of such different degrees of importance, and in parts of the country so remote from each other, both at the commencement and the close of the late civil war, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say on what precise day it began or terminated. It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.

The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.

Note that Lincoln declared a blockade of North Carolina and Virginia a month before they ratified their ordinances of secession on 20 and 23 May 1861.

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol IV, The Abraham Lincoln Association, Springfield, Illinois, edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutgets University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey (1953), pp. 331-32

Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress

April 15, 1861

By the President of the United States

A Proclamation.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-fifth.

[L.S.]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

What "laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed?"

Who are "persons composing the combinations aforesaid?" Within 20 days, they are "to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes" from where, doing what?

Let us look to the Proclamation of a Blockade of April 19, 1861 that, according to the U.S. Supreme Court officially started the war.

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol IV, The Abraham Lincoln Association, Springfield, Illinois, edited by Roy P. Basler, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey (1953), pp. 338-39.

Proclamation of a Blockade

April 19, 1861

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:

And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable.

And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

[L.S.]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State

Well, I'll be durned. The laws Lincoln spoke of are here clearly identified as "the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue," asserting that they "cannot be effectually executed." It was a war to collect the taxes. Lincoln said so, as surely as Alexander Stephens used the term slavery. It was a war to "protect the public peace."

Who were the unidentified "combinations of persons" referred to by Lincoln? That is difficult to say.

What was this mysterious combination of persons doing? They were allegedly "a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection," who "have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States."

That does not identify anyone, and alleges no deed done, but alludes to a supposed threat to authorize others, at some future date uncertain, to "commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States."

Who threatened to assault the lives, vessels, and property of citizens of the United States lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas? The seceding states sought to separate peacefully. They did not commence a war at sea.

And Lincoln proclaimed, "if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy."

Lincoln proclaimed that dastardly combinations threatened to issue letters of marque. Actually, in response to Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops, Jefferson Davis called for applications for letters of marque. Lincoln's proclamation of a blockade (an international act) as opposed to a closing of the ports (the domestic act) caused international recognition of the Confederate States of America as a belligerant power.

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Blockade

U.S. State Department
Office of the Historian

South Recognized as a Belligerent

Following the U.S. announcement of its intention to establish an official blockade of Confederate ports, foreign governments began to recognize the Confederacy as a belligerent in the Civil War. Great Britain granted belligerent status on May 13, 1861, Spain on June 17, and Brazil on August 1. Other foreign governments issued statements of neutrality.

There went Lincoln's silly crap about piracy on the high seas.

http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/jefferson-davis-invites-privateers-aid-confederacy

Proclamation by Jefferson Davis

Letters of Marque to be issued by the Confederate States

Montgomery, April 17.

Whereas Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, has announced his intention of invading the Confederacy with an armed force, for the purpose of capturing its fortresses, and thereby subverting its independence, and subjecting its free people to the dominion of a foreign power; and whereas it has become the duty of this government to repel the threatened invasion, and defend the rights and liberties of the people by all the means which the laws of nations and the usages of civilized warfare place at its disposal;

Now, therefore, I, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, do issue this my proclamation, inviting all those who may desire by armed service in private armed vessels on the high seas to aid this government in resisting so wanton and wicked an aggression, to make application for commissions or letters of marque and reprisal, to be issued under the seal of these Confederate States.

And I do further notify all persons applying for letters of marque to make a statement in writing, giving the name and suitable description of the character, tonnage and force of the vessel, the name of the place of residence of each owner concerned therein, and the intended number of the crew, and to sign each statement and deliver the same to the Secretary of State or Collector of the port of entry of these Confederate States, to be by him transmitted to the Secretary of State.

And I do further notify all applicants aforesaid before any commission or letter of marque is granted to any vessel, or to the owner or owners thereof, and the commander for the time being, that they will be required to give a bond to the Confederate States, with at least two responsible sureties, not interested in such vessel, in the penal sum of five thousand dollars, with the condition that the owners, officers and crew, who shall be employed on board, shall observe the laws of these Confederate States, and the instructions given them for the regulation of their conduct, that shall satisfy all damages done contrary to the tenor thereof by such vessel during her commission, and deliver up the same when revoked by the President of the Confederate States.

And I do further specially enjoin upon all persons holding offices civil and military under the authority of the Confederate States, that they be vigilant and zealous in the discharge of the duties incident thereto. And I do moreover solemnly exhort the good people of the Confederate States, as they love their country, as they prize the blessing of a free government, as they feel the wrongs of the past, and those now threatened in aggravated form by those whose enmity is more implacable because unprovoked, that they exert themselves in preserving order, in promoting concord, in maintaining the authority and efficiency of the laws, and in supporting and invigorating all the measures which may be adopted for the common defence, and by which, under the blessing of Divine Providence, we may hope for a speedy, just and honorable peace.

In testimony whereof I have set my hand and seal this 17th day of April.

(Signed) Jefferson Davis

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-24 20:33:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com