The Dialectical Aspects of Struggling for Reparations and Advancing Democracy in the United States c - Notes on African-American History Since 1900 The

The Dialectical Aspects of Struggling for Reparations and Advancing Democracy in the United States c

This preview shows page 1 out of 285 pages.

Unformatted text preview: Notes on African-American History Since 1900 The history of chattel slavery from 1619 to 1863 is a history of African-American resistance to the American slave system. African captives resisted slavery in various forms; from insurrections on slave ships during the Middle Passage, sabotaging, maiming and killing animals, non-cooperation, work slowdowns, running away, suicide, and work strikes, to organized rebellion. During slavery some two hundred and four slave insurrections occurred. Slave plots were recorded in New York as early as 1712 and 1741. The Stono insurrection in South Carolina in 1720, and again in 1739, created utter fear in the slaveholders. There was a slave plot in Georgia in 1739, but the largest and most notable slave plots or insurrections were the Gabrial Prosser Conspiracy in Virginia in 1800, the slave revolt in Louisiana in 1811, the Demark Vesey Conspiracy in South Carolina in 1821 and the Nat Turner insurrection in Virginia in 1831. 1 Probably the largest slave revolt in the United States took place near New Orleans in 1811. Four to five hundred slaves gathered after an uprising at the plantation of a Major Andry. Armed with cane knives, axes and clubs, they wounded Andry, killed his son, and began marching from plantation to plantation, their numbers growing. They were attacked by the U.S. army and militia forces; sixty-six were killed on the spot and sixteen were tried and shot by a firing squad.2 Resistance continued and became more intense along with anti-slavery agitation by white and African-American (Freedmen or runaways) abolitionists during the years preceding the Civil War. Sectional conflict, both within Congress and in the prairies and streets of America, became so violent, that with the election of Abraham Lincoln as president, the South seceded and attacked the Union. Economically slaves were being used increasingly as an industrial labor force for Southern industry prior to the outbreak of the Civil War.3 So, the question of which way the nation was to go, free labor or slave labor, was a paramount question for the developing white industrial class in northern cities. The combination of the Union Army and African-American ex-slaves (Union soldiers) destroyed the Confederacy and ended slavery. 4 During the Civil War, at various meetings and through promises from the Union generals, African-Americans came to believe the previous slave plantations would be broken up into individual 40 acre sections, and two mules would be loaned to them by the federal government, for their participation in helping the (North) Union win the Civil War. African-Americans in the Civil War In the annals of American History, many historians consider the Civil War between northern and southern states, to be the most pivotal event in determining the course of the nation that was the United States of America. The Civil War lasted a little more than three years, and like many civil wars, pitted brother against brother, which resulted in feelings of distrust and animosity that have continued for over a century. AfricanAmericans fought valiantly to change the course of history and their status in a young 1 Harvey Wish, American Slave Insurrections Before 1861", The Journal of Negro History, XXII [July 1947] 299-320. 2 Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States [New York: Harper Colaphon Books, 1980] p.169. 3 Robert S. Starobin, Industrial Slavery in the Old South [New York: Oxford University Press, 1975], especially Chapter 5. 4 W.E.B. DuBois, Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880 [New York: Atheneum, 1973], especially Chapter 4. nation that heretofore regarded them primarily as chattel slaves, or second-class citizens providing a source of cheap, if not free, labor. Hundreds of books have been written about the Civil War, but few focus on the contributions of African-Americans. In addition to the books about African-Americans in the Civil War, there are movies, websites that provide excerpts from journals, brief articles and reference lists. In recent years popular films and historical documentaries focusing on AfricanAmericans and specifically the 54th regiment have been produced to provide a more balanced historical account of the soldiers who fought in the Civil War. Many of the resources that focus on the role of African-Americans in the Civil War were written, or produced, by African-Americans. Primary data describing the war and the treatment of soldiers are available in the form of letters from African-American soldiers on the battlefield to their loved ones. As historians, and scholars with a passion for uncovering the truth, these accounts are critical sources for recording and interpreting Civil War events because they offer a perspective of the war from those who's contributions were unjustly marginalized. There are many important stories as told by the descendants of soldiers whose sacrifices have gone unrecognized by mainstream historians. Not surprising to many of us, most accounts of the Civil War only briefly mention the contributions of African-Americans in passing. The following is by no means a full account of African-Americans in the Civil War. Treatment of African-Americans in the Civil War The contraband soldiers, as some were called, and other soldiers of African descent, were not viewed with the same degree of respect and reverence as white solders who fought in the war. African-American soldiers endured racist and prejudicial treatment when it came to medical treatment, training, and punishment as prisoners of war, rewards, and recognition as soldiers. Events Leading African-American Soldiers into the Civil War A growing number of Northern abolitionists argued that the Southern system was morally wrong and must be abolished. Northern abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison founded an antislavery newspaper in 1831 named The Liberator, calling for the end of institutionalized slavery in the United States. Other influential African-American abolitionist leaders included prominent men such as Frederick Douglass, James Forten and David Walker. In 1829, Walker published his pamphlet in Boston entitled Walker's Appeal, two years before Nat Turner's rebellion in Southampton, Virginia, in 1831, urging slaves to rise up and kill their masters. Among the general population, it was widely held that under the constitution, the United States government lacked the power to set slaves free. The rights of the states were considered beyond the reach of federal legislation. The sovereign right of states was the prevailing sentiment. When the Civil War erupted in 1861, few Northerners were willing to fight for the freedom of slaves. The North's war goal was clear and simple - restore the Union. However, after Southerners won several opening battles, it became increasingly clear that in order to defeat the Confederacy, it would be necessary to destroy the South's social and economic structure. Abolition of slavery would be an important step in this destruction. To accomplish this, it would be essential to utilize all available means to win, including employing AfricanAmericans in the military forces. Northerners and the Union army gradually accepted this basic policy. The abolitionist movement aided their cause. One of the most prominent abolitionists of the period was Frederick Douglass. Susan-Mary Grant writes about Frederick Douglass in Pride and Prejudice in the American Civil War. Douglass, an escaped slave, was an abolitionist and frequently gave speeches and wrote about the vestiges of slavery. The following comment, summarizes his thoughts on the matter of African-American soldiers in the civil war as compared to their participation in the revolutionary war, Colored men were good enough to fight under Washington; they are not good enough to fight under McClellan. They were good enough to fight under Andrew Jackson. They are not good enough to fight under General Halleck. They were good enough to help win American independence but they are not good enough to help preserve that independence against treason and rebellion.5 Douglass wrote and spoke eloquently as an abolitionist and advocate for the use of slaves and African-Americans in the war effort: Douglass wrote, "When first the rebel cannon shattered the walls of Sumter, and drove away its starving garrison, I predicted that the war, then and there inaugurated, would not be fought out entirely by white men. Every month's experience during these dreary years has confirmed that opinion. A war undertaken and brazenly carried on for the perpetual enslavement of colored men, calls logically and loudly for colored men to help suppress it. Only a moderate share of sagacity was needed to see that the arm of the slave was the best defense against the arm of the slaveholder. Hence, with every reverse to the national arms, with every exultant shout of victory raised by the slaveholding rebels, I have implored the imperiled nation to unchain against her foes, her powerful African-American hand. Slowly and reluctantly that appeal is being heeded."6 Americans went to war with each other in the 1860's partly because two very different societies had developed; one in the North, influenced by developing industry, and the other in the South, where agriculture remained dominant. Of these two societies, the South used Africans in much larger numbers as slaves for labor. Using slave labor was very expensive, allowing fewer than twenty percent of Southerners to own and maintain slaves. In the North, the vast majority of the citizens and immigrants labored for wages. The North enjoyed a higher standard of living, which allowed for the development of a middle class and the beginnings of an industrial working class. It was this economic advantage that was being threatened by the breaking up of the Union. The economic implications of maintaining or dismantling slavery were far more influential in shaping policy than the moral position denouncing slavery. 5 Grant, Susan-Mary, History Today, September 1998, “Pride and Prejudice in the American Civil War” 6 Cornish, Dudley Taylor, The Sable Arm, Black Troops in the Union Army, 1861-1865, [University Press of Kansas, 1987] p. 108). The new president, Abraham Lincoln, was also concerned about Europe's view of the United States. He was being forced to take into consideration the international status of the nation in making policy decisions related to the question of slavery because, if he could get Britain to support the North and boycott the South, it would affect the Southern economy. England could do this because it could get cotton for its textile mills from plantations in India that produced cotton. Closer to home, Lincoln was being pressured by northern abolitionists and African-Americans. He was very concerned about alienating Border States which, although technically Southern states, they still held solidarity with the Union as compared to those States which had already seceded from the Union. In response to the economic implications of a prolonged war and the military's inability to gain a solid victory against the Confederacy, a series of legislative policies were enacted. In 1861, Congress had passed an act stating that all slaves employed against the Union were to be considered free. In 1862, Congress passed the Confiscation Act. This law stated that property used by the Confederates to further their rebellion could be seized by the U.S. government. Slaves, who had been Confederate property, were therefore considered "contraband of war" and could legally be taken from their owners. In an effort to placate the slave-holding Border States, Lincoln resisted the demands of radical Republicans for complete abolition. Yet some Union generals, such as General B. F. Butler, declared slaves escaping to their lines "contraband of war," not to be returned to their masters. Other generals decreed that the slaves of men rebelling against the Union were to be considered free. Congress, too, had been moving toward abolition. In the early years of the war, the enthusiasm of African-Americans to contribute to the war was declined and thwarted continuously. By the end of 1861, only in the Union Navy had they been granted any opportunity, however limited, to prove their worth as men. The Confederacy used its colored population when and where it wanted. The North continued the policy of allowing states to use their discretion in whether or not to use slaves in the war effort. Lincoln was hoping to gain favor with the Border States by allowing them to decide for themselves on the question of slaves as soldiers. The Crittenden Resolution passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 22, 1861, affirming the fact that the war was being fought to preserve the Union and not to interfere with slavery. In 1862, another act stated that all slaves of men who supported the Confederacy were to be considered free.7 Lincoln, aware of the public's growing support of abolition, issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, declaring that all slaves in areas still in rebellion were, in the eyes of the federal government, free. Congress eventually passed the Enrollment Act, which authorized equal pay for African-American soldiers. Treatment of African-American Soldiers The Emancipation Proclamation declared that as of January 1, 1863 all slaves in rebellious territories were forever free. The Emancipation Proclamation expanded the Union cause to include freedom for slaves. Therefore, African-American recruits were enrolled into segregated units led by white officers. 7 Cornish, Dudley Taylor, The Sable Arm, Black Troops in the Union Army, 1861-1865, [University Press of Kansas, 1987] p. 108). The War Department sanctioned the recruitment of African-American troops in August 1862 but, African-American troops were not properly raised until after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1st, 1863.8 The decision came at a time when the war was not going well for the Union, and coincided with the first draft in the North. In some ways this helped. Racist objections to the arming of former slaves could easily, if cynically, be countered on the grounds that it was better that an African-American soldier die than a white one. As John M. Broomall, Congressman from Pennsylvania noted: I have never found the shakiest constituent of mine, who, when he was drafted, refused to let the blackest Negro in the district go as a substitute for him.9 Some generals, such as William T. Sherman, did not want the African-Americans in their army, but most Union officers reported that African-American men made good soldiers who were highly motivated, did not get drunk, obeyed their officers, and rarely deserted. Principally, they were given non-combat assignments like garrison and occupation duty. These men guarded prisoner of war compounds, supply depots, and labor details such as building roads, digging fortifications, and driving mule powered wagons. Ironically, they also worked on cotton and sugar cane plantations confiscated by Union authorities. Although many African-American soldiers earned respect for hard work and courageous fighting, the price was high. Nearly one in three died in combat, while others died of wounds and disease. Medical supplies were limited, treatment was crude, and the best trained medics were assigned to white soldiers. Despite their achievements on the battlefield, they suffered from discrimination and prejudice. Because African-Americans were not considered equals by Confederates, many were murdered instead of being taken prisoner and thrown into mass graves. When the Union began using African-American troops in combat, the Confederates announced that they would consider any African-American soldier they could capture not as a prisoner of war but as a fugitive slave. Many Southerners announced unofficially that they would execute any African-American soldier they captured. On April 12, 1864, General Nathan B. Forrest made this threat very real when his cavalry attacked a Union base at Fort Pillow, Tennessee. After the white and African-American solders of the Union army surrendered to Forrest's men, the Confederates proceeded to shoot their prisoners.10 It is estimated that between 277 and 297 Union soldiers were either killed or fatally wounded at what would be known as the massacre at Fort Pillow. The mortality rate among the African-American troops was a staggering 64 percent. 11 Word of the massacre spread quickly. The most profound and immediate impact of Fort Pillow was felt by the AfricanAmerican men already in the Union ranks, and by the white officers who commanded them. From Fort Pickering in Memphis, 2nd Lieutenant W.A Price of the 55th USCT put down his thoughts for New York's Anglo-African newspaper: While I meditate for a moment of the Fort Pillow massacre my very blood 8 Grant, Susan-Mary, History Today, September 1998, “Pride and Prejudice in the American Civil War” 9 Grant, Susan-Mary, History Today, September 1998, “Pride and Prejudice in the American Civil War” 10 Redkey, Edwin S. A Grand Army of Black Men, [Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1992] p. 7.) 11 Trudeau, Noah Ander, Like Men of War, Black Troop in the Civil War 186201865. (Little, Brown, and Company 1998, p. 168). chills within my veins. I often ask myself the question; "Shall we as officers and men of colored regiments, ever be found with prisoners in our possession?" I can only answer for myself; I would be tempted in such circumstances to mow the infernal rebels to the ground, as I would mow the grass before my scythe. I know not how soon I may be called to share the fate of the gallant officers and men at Fort Pillow. God forbid that such should ever be my lot.12 It is reported that one regiment from Ohio led by Lieutenant Viers, was defeated and left twenty three wounded men on the battlefield who fell into the rebel's hands. Of the twenty-three prisoners, eleven died in Confederate hands. Five others met unknown fates after their capture and one soldier among those being held prisoner died in Richmond after being enslaved. Seven of the soldiers and their commander, Lieutenant Viers, received paroles.13 In another incident, one soldier who survived imprisonment to tell his story was Sergeant Rodney Long of the 29th USCT. After being released from prison in Danville, Virginia where he spent seven months in Confederate detention, he recalled "We suffered terribly while in prison and most of our men died there. His fellow prisoner, who survived capture because his bloody face disguised the fact that he was African-American, also said, "I never knew what it was to get anything respectable to eat while in prison, and there was not one third enough of the vile stuff that was given us. He said, "I was punished severely on account of my color. Out of 180 colored prisoners taken, only seven survived.”14 Reports of the severe treatment and killing of prisoners resulted in abolitionists and recruiters demanding fair treatment of prisoners of war. Upon learning about the treatment of members of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry taken as prisoners, Frederick Douglass wrote a letter to George L. Stearns explaining why he refused to continue his recruiting efforts for the Union army: Douglass asked, "How many 54ths must be cut to pieces, its mutilated prisoners killed, and its living sold into slavery, to be tortured to death by inches, before Mr. Lincoln shall say, 'Hold, enough!15 Douglass was one man among many calling for the fair treatment of African-American soldiers. Finally, when African-American soldiers were captured in an engagement before Charleston and the confederates refused to exchange the captured soldiers according to the terms of a previous agreement, President Lincoln issued the following order: "Executive Mansion, Washington, July 30th, 1863. "It is the duty of every government to give protection to it...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture