Black Americans Supported the Confederate Army - Essay Example

Black Americans Supported the Confederate Army Black Americans formed a high percentage of the population of the United States. The Black Americans were however faced with discrimination from the Americans as a result of their African origin. Despite the many challenges they faced while working in the new world, they formed an important part of history of America. This includes their interaction with the Confederate Army. The Confederate Army refers to the army during the civil wars of the Confederate States of America. President Jefferson Davis acted as the commander-in-chief of the Confederate Army until it was defeated by the union army ending the civil war. This section uses primary books and articles to explore the Black Americans’ support of the Confederate Army. America’s history of civil war is to a large part built by the African-Americans, who to a large extent were involved in the war. The commonwealth Virginia, based on slavery, the black Americans featured a lot in the civil wars. Some of them were recruited into the confederate army, pushing their counterparts to support the confederate army. The black-Americans were inspired by the civil wars, an event that led to their deaths, such as that of Heyward Shepherd, in the civil wars. It is worth noting that the black-Americans involvement in the war and support of the Confederate Army was a way of seeking liberation1. The attacks carried out by the black-Americans in the army were for liberation, which they were very much determined to achieve. Heyward’s death in the liberation attacks was highly honored by the other Negroes. He was honored as a hero, and a monument erected in his honor by the sons of the Confederate and the daughters of the Confederacy2. The other reason for the Black-Americans’ support of the confederate army was out of their working relationship with the military. A few of the Black-Americans worked in the army. They mainly worked as cooks, general labors, and teamsters. This drove the other large population, not in the army to support their fellow Negros working in the Confederate Army. They were concerned about each other’s welfare and had all the right intentions for their fellow black people.3  Right from the beginning, black men were allowed into the Confederate Army. They served in the Confederate Army with dedication so as to protect their families and communities.4  The civil war however weakened the lives of the Black-Americans in various ways. For instance, the fathers had to be away in the field fighting most of the times, leaving their families unattended5. On March 13, 1865, Black-Americans were recruited in the Confederate Army to fight alongside the white soldiers. This followed after an order issued by Lee requiring many blacks in the army. The black soldiers were to come from various states, something that even increased their support for the military, when they met in the army and shared their slavery stories and need for liberation. The law was signed by Davis, promising freedom to the black soldiers who were in the military. The law also dictated that once freed, and the soldiers would also be compensated with a piece of land. This is what the black-Americans desired most and increased their support for the Confederate army to a significant degree6. Question 2: The civil war was fought over states' right and no slavery Historical interpretations in the 21st century point out to civil wars having been fought over anti-slavery and states’ right. Even if the two are causes of Civil War, they only form a small part of the reasons that triggered the Civil War. The other causes of civil war include national or ethnic groups and their burning desire for autonomy. Ethnicity played a significant role in the civil war. Ethnicity was fuelled by international powers that included colonial authority patterns and tribal elites. Social ethnic groups’ composition, the groups’ capabilities posed a great danger to the state. The coming together of people from the groups would eventually result in the emergence of civil war7. Rebellion resulting in the civil war was caused by grievances such as high inequality, divisions in the society in terms of religion and lack of properly articulated political rights. The rebellion can also be explained in terms of typical opportunities for building a rebel organization8.   States would engage in the war to take full control of the opportunities in the economy, giving them more dominance over other states. The current prevalence of internal war is as a result of ethnic and religious antagonisms. Current prevalence of war can be attributed to the steady accumulation of conflicts that existed from the 1950s and 1960s. At present, nations are less likely to engage in a civil war since there is proper control of per capita income among nations. Despite the diverse religious beliefs and ethnic groups globally, there are minimal cases of civil war among nations. Cases of civil wars that may be reported are guerilla wars resulting from particular forms of military practice. The military methods can however be harnessed to diverse political agendas. On this note, it civil wars can only be caused by conditions that favor insurgency. Further disputing the idea of anti-slavery as a cause of civil war is the existence of poverty among nations. Continued poverty is a potential cause of civil war. The reason for this is that poverty renders weak states and nations vulnerable to rebel recruitment9.  Energetic young people will be enticed into joining battle squads as a way of escaping poverty. The rebel recruitment will cause political instability that will eventually result in a civil war. The other cause of the civil war can be termed as cultural difference. People from the North were said to have come from the Anglo-Saxon tribes which had been conquered by the Norman cavaliers. The Anglo-Saxon was a race believed to be fearless and warlike. The race was known for its gentleness and intellect. The people of the South were aggressive and intended to conquer the Northerners. The southerners, on the other hand, had the feeling that the Southerners were out to conquer them. The confederate soldiers in the south, therefore, engaged in the war, with the intent of defending their homeland and families from the Northern aggression10. Question 3: The South believed it could win the war against the North despite numerical disadvantages Despite the numerical disadvantages of war, the South believed it had the ability to win the war against the North. In the north and the south, war was perceived as a way of life, disrupting the conceptions of identity, nationhood, and time. The war that took place in 1861-1865 was all-consuming and obsessive. They were determined to conquer each other, but the South was more convinced that it could win the war against the north11. The south was warlike and thought of nothing else but war. Like William Gilmore Simms observed, the people from the south breathed nothing but war and read nothing else, but military books to prepare for the war. The other reason motivating the southerners was the fact that so many publishers hailed from the north and praised their people from the north. For instance, there were 986 printing offices in the New England as compared to 151 in the south. There existed 190 bookbinders in the New England as compared to 17 in the south. The southerners were determined to prove the northerners wrong. The authors and publishers from the north were responding to the calls for war by making provocative remarks that to some extent triggered war. They produced what could be termed as war literature. The statements produced economic and cultural divisions. The divisions between the two sections deepened during the course of the war. In the 1861 the southern ports were blocked meaning the southerners could no longer access the Northern literature, further creating divisions between the two states. The south however believed it could win this war out of its determination to retain the slaves, a practice that the North was very much opposed to. The north wanted slave trade abolished in the whole of America, something that south was not ready to take. The other reason the south believed in winning the war because they wanted to rescue their prisoners who were held up in the Northern prisons. The south faced the disadvantage of lacking enough men to fight in the field. As a way of cutting its numerical advantage, the North had cut off all exchanges of prisoners12. It is interesting how the south held on to the war for that long, given its numerous disadvantages ranging from lack of enough warriors to lack of resources since their economy was so weak compared to the North. The North dealt in lots of good ranging from steel to agricultural material and firearms. However, the South proved itself to be strong enough by revolutionizing their economy from an agrarian into an industrial one, as far as war material is concerned13. The confederate government, therefore, nationalized the productive power of manufacturers to keep up with the requirements of the war. The southern army, led by Davis played smarter than its Northern counterpart in preparation for the war. The industries of the Confederate expanded and improved their existing arsenals by creating new and better ones. Facilities such as laboratories and foundries were developed by the Southern navy. They also established marine machinery works and shipyards14.   All these were in preparation for the war. The South felt adequately prepared and therefore had all the reasons to believe that they would win the war against the North. Question 5: Texas vs. White the Supreme Court Texas v. White was meant to give the republican guaranty clause, which resided in the Congress. The reconstruction of the Texas versus White was to give the Congress authority to take constitutional measures geared towards the development of the defeated states. The Congress felt the need to push the government in filling the vacuum that existed as an aftermath of the Southern defeat. All the states had received a guarantee of a republican form of government. The legislative action was taken to implement the Guaranty Clause, which presented a political question15. The congressional Reconstruction was based on the constitutional position. In the Texas v. White, the Supreme Court had placed an imprimatur on the view that it was formed by the Congress but not the president. The Texas v White provided a law that recognized marriages, wills, deeds and the contacts which were created in the rebellious states during the civil war16.  The reconstruction also asserted that the United States was a Confederate state which should offer a compact relationship between all the states. It emphasized that the United States was perpetual and should be treated as an unbreakable union. The other importance of the Texas versus White was to stop the implications arising from bonds that the federal government had earlier on issued to Texas in the 1850. The bonds had remained unsold when the Civil War began17. The other reason the secession of Texas v. White was considered unconstitutional was because Texas had earlier on sued White so as to compel White to surrender its bonds to the treasury of the Texas state. During the civil war, the White had paid the military for the bonds which were conveyed to them. The Texas state had complained of the transaction and requested the Supreme Court to halt the transaction. The state of Texas belonged to the Confederacy and the Chief Justice at the time, Salmon P. Chase had written to the court complaining about the exchange of the bonds. He had declared the whole contract as null and void, lacking any effect. To reverse the unconstitutional secession, there was the emergence of war. The Supreme Court had made the proposition on the grounds of granting the constituent state a unilateral departure from the federal union. The Court, as a result, declined to approve the conveyance between the Military Board and that of the Whites. The proposal which has followed from this is for recognition of any secessionist community; then it must have abided to the constitutional rules of the parent state18. Deviating from an indestructible union, the secession had gone against the constitution, according to the Chief Justice Chase. Indestructible Union meant that any state of the United States could never secede from the Union that is the United States, under any circumstances19.  This is why the succession of the Texas v. White brought so much of an uproar, by activists arguing that the move was totally unconstitutional. Question 6: Dred Scott Dred Scott was a Negro, who could not be thought to remain in the history of America both in his time and the decades in the future. He was just an ordinary slave who had no particular intelligence or a unique position to improve the status of his fellow slaves20. The amendments in overturning Dred Scott were in line with the requirements of the 19th century. The countries were required to move from feudal to republican practices so as to determine citizenship by descent. Inclusion of the jurisdiction phrase had two reasons. The first of the reasons was to emphasize the need for common-law exceptions of children and ambassadors, as well as the occupying armies. The other reason was to exclude the children of the Indian tribes from the relation to the national government, which was unknown to the common law21. The amendments made citizenship too precious to be shared primarily among the Americans of African descent. The aftermath of the bloody war between friends and foes of the decision was the Congress drafting a constitutional provision mandating a contrary rule forever. The amendments made citizenship too precious to be shared primarily among the Americans of African descent. The aftermath of the bloody war between friends and foes of the decision was the Congress drafting a constitutional provision mandating a contrary rule forever. The amendments were followed to solve the problem of slavery in the United States. When the Supreme Court ruled out Dred Scott’s overturning, it meant ending slavery. However, the intentions of the court were not met, and they just made matters worse by dividing the country further over the slavery issue. The further divisions went to the extent of causing civil war. It is on this note that the other two branches of the government went on to try and overcome the persistent issue of slavery. The efforts of the two branches of the government came to bear fruits in 1862, when the Congress formed an Act prohibiting slavery in the Columbian District, repealing the Fugitive Slave Act. President Lincoln went further to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, announcing the freedom of the slaves once the Union Army took control of the states22. The amendments led to the eradication of the effects of the Dred Scott’s case though the efforts were found to be inconsistent with the original Constitution. The amendment was meant to end slavery, thus allowing the black-Americans freedom. Even though finally, Dred Scott acquired freedom to himself and to other slaves, it had taken the three amendments in the constitution of the U.S. this is because his case was complicated. Before suing the federal government, he was considered a black just like any other. However, he had traveled to U.S with his master, the army surgeon. To add to this, he had married another black, Harriet, transferring her ownership to Emerson, a surgeon. The Scotts believed that they should be granted freedom since the Missouri court had declared slaves should enjoy freedom if they had at one time resided in a free state23. Bibliography Beringer, Richard E. 1991. Why the South lost the Civil War. University of Georgia Press Call, Charles T. 2012. Why Peace Fails the Causes and Prevention of Civil War Recurrence. Washington: Georgetown University Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=892978 Collier, Paul, and Anke Hoeffler. "Oxford Economic Papers." Greed and Grievance in Civil War. January 1, 2014. Accessed December 7, 2014. http://oep.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/563.short Fahs, Alice. 2001. The imagined Civil War: popular literature of the North & South, 1861-1865. Chapel Hill [u.a.]: Univ. of North Carolina Press Fearon, James, and David Laitin. "American Political Science Review." American Political Science Review. February 1, 2003. Accessed December 7, 2014. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=142717&fileId=S0003055403000534 Finkelman, Paul, and Peter Wallenstein. The encyclopedia of American political history. Cq Pr, 2001. Frank, Lisa Tendrich. 2009. Civil War: people and perspectives. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC CLIO. 107 Gallagher, Gary W., and Alan T. Nolan. 2000. The myth of the lost cause and civil war history. Bloomington: Indiana University Press Grant, Thomas D. 1999. The recognition of States: law and practice in debate and evolution. Westport (Conn.): Praeger 99 Greene, Helen Taylor, and Shaun L. Gabbidon. 2009. Encyclopedia of race and crime. 1, 1. Los Angeles: SAGE. 222 Jordan, Ervin L. 1995. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia. Charlottesville, Va: University Press of Virginia Pavković, Aleksandar, and Peter Radan. 2007. Creating new states theory and practice of secession. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=438458. 222 Segars, J. H., and Charles Kelly Barrow. 2001. Black Southerners in Confederate Armies. Atlanta, GA: Southern Lion Books, Inc Richter, William L. 2004. Historical Dictionary of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Group. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=467337 Ross, Michael A. 2003. Justice of shattered dreams: Samuel Freeman Miller and the Supreme Court during the Civil War era. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press 163 Schwartz, Bernard. 1993. A history of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press. 138 Zuczek, Richard. 2006. Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction era. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=224761. 649 Swisher, Carl. "Dred Scott One Hundred Years After." The Journal of Politics. May 1, 1957. Accessed December 7, 2014. 183http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6371836 &fileId=S0022381600097905. 167-183 Thomas, Brook. 2007. Civic myths a law-and-literature approach to citizenship. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/122423573.html. 187 Waugh, John C. "Reelecting Lincoln." In Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency, 156. New York: Crown Publishers, 2009. 156 Read More