Recruiting Black Troops for the Confederacy

[Steveholmes]

Hi folks, I'm not sure if I already mentioned this on some thread. I don't remember if I did. It's just a suggestion for the next version. But would it be possible on the Confederate Tech Tree, to reseach a sort of Confederate Emancipation so to create cheap Black Volunteers units
Knowing that General Robert E.Lee was for it in recruiting black men.
Here are some links which talks about such ideas.
Here is an original letter from R.E.Lee

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun...drewHunter.htm

http://www.historynet.com/robert-e-lee-on-black-troops-and-the-confederacy-february-1998-civil-war-times-feature.htm

[26th North Carolina Redcoat]

Well, I believe the devs already said they had finished making new units. But an "emancipation" technology that lowers public order and allows you to recruit black troops would be awesome for the union. "conscription" too.

[ecompany]

From what I've read a few months ago the tech tree is already complete when you launch the campaign, as well as the unit roster.

It would be a nice touch, if available in 1865, but playing through the war with them would be a little off in my opinion.

[Railin12]

AS this mod is close to historically correct, black slaves were never armed in the South and never set foot in a Confederate regiment so why would they be in the game?

[Don Massey]

It's an interesting idea but that's not at all historical. And think about it. If this happened wouldn't a lot of the black soldiers defect and sabotage the Confederacy? Just because a country that tried to preserve slavery recently freed them they are going to fight against a country that has always treated them as citizens?

[Steveholmes]

It's just an idea. As the Confederate states saw that they couldn't continue a war of attrition, all possible solutions to win the war was put on the table.
Examplified by this quote of the letter written by Robert. E. Lee. In Jan 11, 1865 to Andrew Jackson Hunter
Headquarters Army of Northern Virginia January 11, 1865
Hon. Andrew Hunter
Sir:I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the subject. I shall be most happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the quality of the black troops, well I'm certain that their moral may quickly degrade. It would be a risk in developing this tech tree. For it may take many turns, to represent the debate in the Confederal Congress. Once the Southern emancipation developed, then comes the risk in using them in battle. After all, being precise in history doesn't have to exactly follow history. The player should decide how to follow his own path. But when all the the cards of the deck is used, there comes the moment to take more risks. Which is the fun part of playing this game.

[Steveholmes]

It's an interesting idea but that's not at all historical. And think about it. If this happened wouldn't a lot of the black soldiers defect and sabotage the Confederacy? Just because a country that tried to preserve slavery recently freed them they are going to fight against a country that has always treated them as citizens?

As for your question. The average northern person, didn't really cared about the black slaves. Besides some of the more active abolitionists who did all they could to emplant the british SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT 1833, but seens as a too much of a British thing from the point of view of the wealthy northern establishment. They continued owning slaves, until Thirteenth Amendment passed by the Senate in April 8, 1864.

As in that same time new immigrants "Irish immigrants" was flowing at a steady pase, came readly cheap labour. The newly freed slaves in the North wasn't seen as a welcoming solution. But a way to pit both unwanted communities to work for cheaper wages. Thus filling the pockects of the rich employers. Again the industrial era was starting to filter in, making these pooor communities work harder for undesirable conditions.

[Steveholmes]

Here are some interesting correspondence of the Confederal Congress, expressing the dire situation. Fun to read.

The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cg...=root;size=100

[Don Massey]

That doesn't really answer my question, or the point of my question, as to why these soldiers would be motivated to fight for the Confederacy. Their moral would make Roman peasants look brave.

[Steveholmes]

That doesn't really answer my question, or the point of my question, as to why these soldiers would be motivated to fight for the Confederacy. Their moral would make Roman peasants look brave.

I'm sorry, I wasn't too clear with my answer to your question, but I did answer part of your question at the bottom of post #6, yes the only motivation of them to joining the Confederacy, would of been, having their freedom, and to finally show the southern white folks or "any white folks" that they are worthy and capable to fight, as an equal. Also afterwards the end of the war, no matter which side wins, the promise to own land and stay in the South where many black Americans would rather stay than to take the chance else where. Now whether or not this would work, is matter of fictional revisioned future. It would also depend how the Confederate Army would inlist these black troops, whether by force or by promises.

[Steveholmes]

That doesn't really answer my question, or the point of my question, as to why these soldiers would be motivated to fight for the Confederacy. Their moral would make Roman peasants look brave.

I'm sorry, I wasn't too clear with my answer to your question, but I did answer part of your question at the bottom of post #6, yes the only motivation of them to joining the Confederacy, would of been, having their freedom, and to finally show the southern white folks or "any white folks" that they are worthy and capable to fight, as an equal. Also afterwards the end of the war, no matter which side wins, the promise to own land and stay in the South where many black Americans would rather stay than to take the chance else where. Now whether or not this would work, is matter of fictional revisioned future. It would also depend how the Confederate Army would inlist these black troops, whether by force or by promises.

[Trig]

At the moment this entire debate is entirely theoretical, since noone in the team is working on any sort of a tech tree at all.

We have actually pondered the tech of emancipating slaves in the south as well and make a couple black regiments available for recruitment, but never got past the brainstorming phase.

As to why would the blacks fight for te south, there is the interesting case of 1st Louisiana Native Guards regiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Lo...uard_%28CSA%29

In short, they formed up from the "free people of colour" of New Orleans, offered their service to the Confederacy, more or less out of patriotism for their home state, but were turned away with disgust by the predominantly racist authorities. Afterwards, when Union took New Orleans, many of them enlisted in the Yankee army and this time they weren't turned away.

[Steveholmes]

Indeed Trig, all this theoretical debate. But it keeps people informed and brings in ideas onto the forum, whether or not it will be on a possible next version. Also for the union side I think that emancipation should be researched and coloured troops should be available after the research tech attained. Remember Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the emancipation proclamation in January 1, 1863, and the first coloured troops paraded in May 22, 1863. This caused the Southern States to lose any chance of official recognition. Since most of the European nations shifted sides. If the Conderate States would of been the first to declare the emancipation I'm sure that the European nations would of continue giving supplies and loan money to continue the war.

[Trig]

I'm rather certain European countries didn't give a toss about slaves one way or another. After all, European powers were well racist themselves and kept most of Africa and parts of Asia in practically slave conditions still well into the 20th century (you'll very rarely hear the British speak of 60 million people in India that died in man-made famines under British colonial rule, and up to 14 million Africans in Congo that died under Belgian rule aren't a common topic either, among others...), so posing as some incredibly morally upright nations that'd not recognise the South out of their disgust for slavery seems utter hypocrisy to me.

In deciding who to lend support to, everyone mainly cared about their own political interests. UK was rather keen to see US suffer for losing it as a colony, so would have preferred to see it broken up and supported the South, where it hoped to also establish itself as a factor once again, the French were at the time rather friendly with UK, so they tagged along. The Germans and Austro-Hungarians didn't much care one way or another so they sold gear to both sides. And Russia, still upset about the recent Crimmean war with Britain and France invading it, would support anyone who was against Britain and France, so Tzar Nicholas I. was then Lincoln's best buddy, even going as far as threatening if Britan joins the war on the Confederate side, he'd make the Russian fleet available to the US side. Had the Confederacy won on its own, without British intervention, the world would have pretty much accepted it. Since US was winning and eventually won militarily, the world accepted that. Slaves had, in fact, very little to do with it.

Likewise in US/CS themselves, slaves were an issue only as much as they were an economical factor, free labour for southern plantation owners, as opposed to paid labour for northern industrialists and were debated mainly through this lens. The sincere abolitionists were a small minority even in the north, the majority just didn't care one way or another. I tend to compare them to the environmentalists today. While they're being vocal about pretty much the most important thing, our planet itself, when heads of states meet, they talk about economy, war, migrations, etc, everything but environment and only get to it when they really, really have to, as not to upset anyone's economic priorities. It was like that during the civil war as well. Slaves were mentioned, but economy, politics, war, were the main topics. Had it been the main issue, the emancipation proclamation would have come sooner, not 2 years into the war, and when it came it came mainly as an economic and political weapon, to economically ruin the South by taking the free labour they relied on from them. While morally right from our humanist perspective, the decision was made for military, not moral reasons. The treatment of the blacks through all the struggles for equality up to this day clearly indicates this.

[Steveholmes]

Trig, I couldn't explain it better than what you just said here. I could also say that, and compare cheap slave labour, like cheap crude oil, today to run an economy. Of course the advent of crude oil and the industrial revolution made the possession of having slaves almost obsolete, and embarrassing for a new nation. Like today great nations will go into war and spread Freedom, when in fact their real reason is a stronghold on the oil. A bit how Andrew Nikiforuk explains here.

http://transitionvoice.com/2013/05/the-age-of-oil-every-man-a-master-every-man-a-slave/


"Just like human slaves, fossil fuels save a lot of hassle for those who use them. Thanks to the work done by machines run on electricity or petroleum, according to Nikiforuk, every North American alive today has the equivalent of 89 virtual humans working for him or her 24/7. These “energy slaves” run our cars; light, heat and cool our houses; power our TVs and phones; and provide consumers with all kinds of stuff from Dacron™ blouses and strappy summer sandals to cookware and books. - See more at: http://transitionvoice.com/2013/05/t....ensHtlp0.dpuf"

[bob_2000]

Black Confederates were an anomaly, and for that reason are mentioned frequently in Union letters. Corporal James Gooding of the 54th Massachusetts was particularly astonished to find blacks fighting for the South in the Charleston area, of all places.

[pappagoat]

We are not going to depict African American regiments fighting under the Confederate battle flag. It did not happen and is also inappropriate. End of story.

This forum is also a place for discussing ACW Mod and its historical context. Please refrain from current geopolitics.

[bob_2000]

We are not going to depict African American regiments fighting under the Confederate battle flag. It did not happen and is also inappropriate. End of story.

This forum is also a place for discussing ACW Mod and its historical context. Please refrain from current geopolitics.

Anyone to dismiss something as "inappropriate" and halt further conversation with an "End of story" must have his mind exactly on "current geopolitics." He certainly doesn't understand what he says when he mentions "historical context": I speculate that the Confederate States government was a matter of months away from experimenting with colored companies and it is a historical fact that blacks served in the Confederate armies. But I'll set aside speculation since you've now declared it inappropriate.

This is a videogame wherein the Mexican government often buys possession of Washington DC, and Generals Burnside and Bragg can be successful military commanders. This is a videogame wherein the war can be delayed some two or three years, if not ad nauseam, allowing the Confederate States to build a prospering economy with a full railroad junction in each state. This is a videogame, and if the player damnwell pleases, he or she can recruit a plethora of colorful and largely fictional regiments that, historically speaking, have no business standing in the same theatre or serving under certain officers. If you guys don't want to add slave regiments, that is fine -- and since you don't have a tech tree that could simulate this happening in, say, a Civil War lasting into 1867, I don't blame you -- but if now, all a sudden, the ACW folks are not going to welcome discussion that sometimes meanders into historical "what if's", then most of us long-standing supporters of the mod have nothing else to discuss.

[Trig]

It was brought up with inconclusive results in previous discussions, it inflamed the posters and it didn't contribute anything to the quality of the mod. This is why this debate is counterproductive and why we don't want to argue about it.
There is no historic source of any black regiment in the Confederacy, except for the inglorious story of 1st Louisiana Native Guards regiment (sorry we've yet to find a coder that can program a script that makes a unit go over to the other side). The odd cook or servant of his white master picking up a rifle in some random skirmish, does not really count as "blacks fought for the Confederacy". Discussed many times, so we're just tired of it by now. If there were an all-black regiment, or even a semi-black regiment on record, we'd have no qualms about adding it, as we had no qualms about adding black union regiments, black "freed slaves" units for some Carribean minors, the confederate battle flag, the "controversial" general Forrest and for some fun in custom battles even zombies... But if we get into "what if" territory for the campaign, there's too much work to do to be able to implement any such credible scenario as "a tech tree that could simulate this happening in, say, a Civil War lasting into 1867"... we'd have to set up the whole new tech tree, which we haven't even touched yet, since we don't really have the expertise to, we'd have to assume several "what if" scenarios... maybe Virginia would "free the slaves" by 1867, but that could cause Georgia to leave the Confederacy? Maybe one or two black volunteer regiments could be raised from the south's free blacks population, but that could cause a morale drop for all Confederate armies? How to simulate all that? How to script it all? And for what purpose? Just to inflame the community further about how credible any of those "what ifs" actually were? Personally I don't think it's worth the bother, nor would it add anything significant to the mod, just more potential bugs for the campaign to crash...

[Teafromprivy]

Imo the best option is to add a sub mod that makes some of the confederate troops be African American because there were only like one regiment that was exclusive to blacks was the one regiment mentioned above. The Confederate African Americans that did fight in the war were more "mixed in." For example how Nathan Bedford Forrest brought 50 or so of his slaves in return for being free from slavery. So it might make sense to make it be a certain chance of a black man to be in the confederate ranks. I don't know if that is possible or not though.