Black Confederates...a History lesson ...

[Rolodawg2011]

http://bethepeopletv.com/black-confederates-were-more-than-cooks-and-servants/


Black Confederates Were More Than Cooks And Servants

JANUARY 20, 2016 BY DR. WALTER WILLIAMS 1 COMMENT



13 0 1 1 4


Last July, Anthony Hervey, an outspoken black advocate for the Confederate flag, was killed in a car crash. Arlene Barnum, a surviving passenger in the vehicle, told authorities and the media that they had been forced off the road by a carload of “angry young black men” after Hervey, while wearing his Confederate kepi, stopped at a convenience store en route to his home in Oxford, Mississippi. His death was in no small part caused by the gross level of ignorance, organized deceit and anger about the War of 1861. Much of the ignorance stems from the fact that most Americans believe the war was initiated to free slaves, when in truth, freeing slaves was little more than an afterthought. I want to lay out a few quotations and ask what you make of them.
..
During the “Civil War,” ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, “There are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels” (Douglass’ Monthly, September 1861).
..
“For more than two years, negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as Rebel soldiers, and had paraded with White troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union.” (Horace Greeley, in his book, “The American Conflict”).
..
“Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number (of Confederate troops). These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde” (report by Dr. Lewis H. Steiner, chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission).
..
In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia, newspaper proposed “three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg” after 70 blacks offered “to act in whatever capacity” had been “assigned to them” in defense of Virginia.
..
Those are but a few examples of the important role that blacks served as soldiers, freemen and slaves on the side of the Confederacy. The flap over the Confederate flag is not quite so simple as the nation’s race “experts” make it. They want us to believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Yes, racists have used the Confederate flag as their symbol, but racists have also marched behind the U.S. flag and have used the Bible. Would anyone suggest banning the U.S. flag from state buildings and references to the Bible?
..
Black civil rights activists, their white liberal supporters and historically ignorant Americans who attack the Confederate flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our patriotic Southern black ancestors who marched, fought and died not to protect slavery but to protect their homeland from Northern aggression. They don’t deserve the dishonor. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a black professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”
..

- See more at: http://bethepeopletv.com/black-conf...s-and-servants/#sthash.nUi8Y5LU.rC3HVI9u.dpuf

 

[HeulenHund2]

More smoke screen history.
It's also true 100s of 1000s blacks followed northern armies constantly risking Their lives and Their Children's lives, desperately trying to escape slavery. Many drowned in rivers rather than turn back.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

More smoke screen history.
It's also true 100s of 1000s blacks followed northern armies constantly risking Their lives and Their Children's lives, desperately trying to escape slavery. Many drowned in rivers rather than turn back.

Really , then why do you think that during the war, when every able body man in the South was away at war....blacks didn't massively escape or riot or rise up??

Why do you think, that while Confederate armies had blacks in their ranks....Union armies put them in all black units and used them as cannon fodder?


I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Que Jeoordy music as he frantically searches Google for answers .

 

[DawginSC]

The argument that blacks loved slaveholders needs to just stop.

Scholastic learned that when they tried to publish their kids book about George Washington's slaves loving him and wanting to bake him a birthday cake.

Slavery was bad. Stop trying to defend it. Yes... some slaves accepted their fates and tried to make the best of their situations. Some even couldn't figure out how to survive after slavery. The same is true of those imprisoned for many years... they become dependent on the institution. That actually shows how awful slavery is... how it robs people of the ability to live as a free man.

As for the idea that the slaves supported the confederacy in general... just stop. Robert E. Lee ran census numbers that found that 60-70% of Virginia's slaves disappeared between 1960 and 1965. They used the opportunity of the white males fighting to flee. The areas where Union forces took control, the numbers who "self emancipated" were over 80%. In the more sheltered areas of Virginia where Union troops didn't arrive... it was still around 50%.

Blacks DID massively escape. Fear kept them from creating a full fledged slave revolt, but they melted away into the shadows all the same.

 

[AmicalolaDawg]

The argument that blacks loved slaveholders needs to just stop.

Scholastic learned that when they tried to publish their kids book about George Washington's slaves loving him and wanting to bake him a birthday cake.

Slavery was bad. Stop trying to defend it. Yes... some slaves accepted their fates and tried to make the best of their situations. Some even couldn't figure out how to survive after slavery. The same is true of those imprisoned for many years... they become dependent on the institution. That actually shows how awful slavery is... how it robs people of the ability to live as a free man.

As for the idea that the slaves supported the confederacy in general... just stop. Robert E. Lee ran census numbers that found that 60-70% of Virginia's slaves disappeared between 1960 and 1965. They used the opportunity of the white males fighting to flee. The areas where Union forces took control, the numbers who "self emancipated" were over 80%. In the more sheltered areas of Virginia where Union troops didn't arrive... it was still around 50%.

Blacks DID massively escape. Fear kept them from creating a full fledged slave revolt, but they melted away into the shadows all the same.

Well said!

 

[Rolodawg2011]

The argument that blacks loved slaveholders needs to just stop.

Scholastic learned that when they tried to publish their kids book about George Washington's slaves loving him and wanting to bake him a birthday cake.

Slavery was bad. Stop trying to defend it. Yes... some slaves accepted their fates and tried to make the best of their situations. Some even couldn't figure out how to survive after slavery. The same is true of those imprisoned for many years... they become dependent on the institution. That actually shows how awful slavery is... how it robs people of the ability to live as a free man.

As for the idea that the slaves supported the confederacy in general... just stop. Robert E. Lee ran census numbers that found that 60-70% of Virginia's slaves disappeared between 1960 and 1965. They used the opportunity of the white males fighting to flee. The areas where Union forces took control, the numbers who "self emancipated" were over 80%. In the more sheltered areas of Virginia where Union troops didn't arrive... it was still around 50%.

Blacks DID massively escape. Fear kept them from creating a full fledged slave revolt, but they melted away into the shadows all the same.

Um...who said slavery was good, or defended slavery. This is about actual HISTORY, not emotional non factual fantasy drummed up by the left. The facts are MOST slaves worked side by side with their owners and felt a stake in what they did, they eat the same food, took care of eachother. Yes no doubt there were more abuses than could be discussed. But MOST slave holders kept their slaves on the plantation by providing for them.....sort of like modern day democRAT voters...but I digress. Beating or abusing a slave would be akin to a farmer tearing up his John Deere.

And you're numbers are simple BS. Didn't happen. If fact slaves were NOT FREE in Union states. Ole Abe only freed Slaves in the South.

Damn, that was the point of this post. To help educate ppl who have been educated in todays schools.....run by leftist buffoons

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Well said!

If it were only true

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Still waiting on anyone to tell me why there were no uprisings in the South during the war????

And why Blacks fought side by side with Southern Armies, but were used as cannon fodder in Union armies?


Que Jeopardy music again...

 

[whitepug6]

rolo is just a troublemaking liar.

At least his traitorous heroes were honest. Here's what confederate major general and Georgian Howell Cobb had to say about confederate black troops:

"I think that the proposition to make soldiers of our slaves is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. It is to me a source of deep mortification and regret to see the name of that good and great man and soldier, General R. E. Lee, given as authority for such a policy. My first hour of despondency will be the one in which that policy shall be adopted.

You cannot make soldiers of slaves, nor slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to negro soldiers your white soldiers will be lost to you; and one secret of the favor with which the proposition is received in portions of the Army is the hope that when negroes go into the Army they will be permitted to retire. It is simply a proposition to fight the balance of the war with negro troops.

You can’t keep white and black troops together, and you can’t trust negroes by themselves. It is difficult to get negroes enough for the purpose indicated in the Presidents message, much less enough for an Army. Use all the negroes you can get, for all the purposes for which you need them, but don’t arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution.

If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong but they won’t make soldiers. As a class they are wanting in every qualification of a soldier. Better by far to yield to the demands of England and France and abolish slavery, and thereby purchase their aid, than to resort to this policy, which leads as certainly to ruin and subjugation as it is adopted; you want more soldiers, and hence the proposition to take negroes into the Army.

Before resorting to it, at least try every reasonable mode of getting white soldiers. I do not entertain a doubt that you can by the volunteering policy[1] get more men into the service than you can arm. I have more fears about arms than about men. For heavens sake try it before you fill with gloom and despondency the hearts of many of our truest and most devoted men by resorting to the suicidal policy of arming our slaves."

This is real history,

 

[Rolodawg2011]

rolo is just a troublemaking liar.

At least his traitorous heroes were honest. Here's what confederate major general and Georgian Howell Cobb had to say about confederate black troops:

"I think that the proposition to make soldiers of our slaves is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. It is to me a source of deep mortification and regret to see the name of that good and great man and soldier, General R. E. Lee, given as authority for such a policy. My first hour of despondency will be the one in which that policy shall be adopted.

You cannot make soldiers of slaves, nor slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to negro soldiers your white soldiers will be lost to you; and one secret of the favor with which the proposition is received in portions of the Army is the hope that when negroes go into the Army they will be permitted to retire. It is simply a proposition to fight the balance of the war with negro troops.

You can’t keep white and black troops together, and you can’t trust negroes by themselves. It is difficult to get negroes enough for the purpose indicated in the Presidents message, much less enough for an Army. Use all the negroes you can get, for all the purposes for which you need them, but don’t arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution.

If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong but they won’t make soldiers. As a class they are wanting in every qualification of a soldier. Better by far to yield to the demands of England and France and abolish slavery, and thereby purchase their aid, than to resort to this policy, which leads as certainly to ruin and subjugation as it is adopted; you want more soldiers, and hence the proposition to take negroes into the Army.

Before resorting to it, at least try every reasonable mode of getting white soldiers. I do not entertain a doubt that you can by the volunteering policy[1] get more men into the service than you can arm. I have more fears about arms than about men. For heavens sake try it before you fill with gloom and despondency the hearts of many of our truest and most devoted men by resorting to the suicidal policy of arming our slaves."

This is real history,

Oh look who shows up. Well seems you're the liar pal. Cause the fact are.....The South DID make slaves soldiers. Its not in dispute. You should actually read what you post Skippy

 

[whitepug6]

Still waiting on anyone to tell me why there were no uprisings in the South during the war????

And why Blacks fought side by side with Southern Armies, but were used as cannon fodder in Union armies?


Que Jeopardy music again...

There were no uprisings in the south during the war because African-Americans were more interested in helping the United States Army obtain their freedom than they were in exacting revenge from southern whites.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

There were no uprisings in the south during the war because African-Americans were more interested in helping the United States Army obtain their freedom than they were in exacting revenge from southern whites.

LMAO....And how did they help? By keeping the crops coming in to feed the Southern Army? By taking care of white women and children? How exactly? Did they hold a million slave march? LOL oh my the ignorance of ppl.

 

[whitepug6]

Oh look who shows up. Well seems you're the liar pal. Cause the fact are.....The South DID make slaves soldiers. Its not in dispute. You should actually read what you post Skippy

Howell Cobb proved to be right. The confederacy was a failure and the theory of slavery was wrong. I'm only sorry all confederates weren't tried and summarily executed for treason.

 

[whitepug6]

LMAO....And how did they help? By keeping the crops coming in to feed the Southern Army? By taking care of white women and children? How exactly? Did they hold a million slave march? LOL oh my the ignorance of ppl.

You must be starved for attention. Read the story of General Butler and Fort Monroe...if you can read.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Howell Cobb proved to be right. The confederacy was a failure and the theory of slavery was wrong. I'm only sorry all confederates weren't tried and summarily executed for treason.

So you claim to be a teacher. But you can't follow the point here? Oh BTW all those Confederates aren't traitors, they're considered AMERICAN soldiers

 

[Rolodawg2011]

You must be starved for attention. Read the story of General Butler and Fort Monroe...if you can read.

Well if so you're satisfying my need. Pal, look, History isn't on yourside here. You're ignorant, that's why I posted the Walter Williams piece. I'm trying to educate you.

 

[whitepug6]

You must be starved for attention. Read the story of General Butler and Fort Monroe...if you can read.

If African-Americans fought for the confederacy, then why would the confederate president Jefferson Davis write this message to the people of the North in January 1863?

"Heretofore, the warfare has been conducted by white men–peers, scions of the same stock; but the programme has been changed, and your rulers despairing of a triumph by the employment of white men, have degraded you and themselves, by inviting the co-operation of the black race. Thus, while they deprecate the intervention of white men–the French and the English–in behalf of the Southern Confederacy, they, these Abolitionists, do not hesitate to invoke the intervention of the African race in favor of the North."

Again, real history---not lies or spin.

 

[whitepug6]

So you claim to be a teacher. But you can't follow the point here? Oh BTW all those Confederates aren't traitors, they're considered AMERICAN soldiers

All confederates committed treason against the United States as defined by Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

If African-Americans fought for the confederacy, then why would the confederate president Jefferson Davis write this message to the people of the North in January 1863?

"Heretofore, the warfare has been conducted by white men–peers, scions of the same stock; but the programme has been changed, and your rulers despairing of a triumph by the employment of white men, have degraded you and themselves, by inviting the co-operation of the black race. Thus, while they deprecate the intervention of white men–the French and the English–in behalf of the Southern Confederacy, they, these Abolitionists, do not hesitate to invoke the intervention of the African race in favor of the North."

Again, real history---not lies or spin.

So you're back to "blacks didn't fight for the South?" And using this quote? Pal damn, you are just scatter brained.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

All confederates committed treason against the United States as defined by Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

But were bestowed rights by Congress. Don't argue history with me.

 

[whitepug6]

If African-Americans were confederate soldiers, then why did confederate army regulations restrict enlistment to "free white men"?

 

[whitepug6]

This is how confederates treated their "Black troops," according to an eyewitness:

 

[Rolodawg2011]

This is how confederates treated their "Black troops," according to an eyewitness:

Yawn.....Bless your heart.

 

[whitepug6]

If Black men had been fighting for the confederacy throughout the war, then why would the Richmond Sentinel and Charlottesville Chronicle publish this in December 1864?

"[Virginia] Governor [William] Smith has now taken the boldest step of his life; he has lifted his voice above all his associate leaders; and the key which he has struck will ultimately find its echoes throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is not one measure — novel and startling in its character-that he proposes; but he propounds three grand theses, each one calculated to produce the liveliest sensation, at once: he is for arming the negroes [sic.]; for calling in the Confederate currency; for a law of maximum prices. One scratches his head. . . . The recommendation about the slaves is also prophetic. They will go in the army, if the war goes on through next year. They will be needed next spring. There will be a storm of opposition; a thousand good reasons will be urged against it; but one imperious consideration will weigh down them all — we shall want men, if the war continues, and it is just simply ridiculous to assert the contrary, without pointing out precisely the grounds for the assertion. Our Southern people have not gotten over the vicious habit of not believing what they don’t wish to believe."

rolo certainly is one of those southern people who "have not gotten over the vicious habit of not believing what they don't wish to believe."

 

[Rolodawg2011]

If Black men had been fighting for the confederacy throughout the war, then why would the Richmond Sentinel and Charlottesville Chronicle publish this in December 1864?

"[Virginia] Governor [William] Smith has now taken the boldest step of his life; he has lifted his voice above all his associate leaders; and the key which he has struck will ultimately find its echoes throughout the length and breadth of the land. It is not one measure — novel and startling in its character-that he proposes; but he propounds three grand theses, each one calculated to produce the liveliest sensation, at once: he is for arming the negroes [sic.]; for calling in the Confederate currency; for a law of maximum prices. One scratches his head. . . . The recommendation about the slaves is also prophetic. They will go in the army, if the war goes on through next year. They will be needed next spring. There will be a storm of opposition; a thousand good reasons will be urged against it; but one imperious consideration will weigh down them all — we shall want men, if the war continues, and it is just simply ridiculous to assert the contrary, without pointing out precisely the grounds for the assertion. Our Southern people have not gotten over the vicious habit of not believing what they don’t wish to believe."

rolo certainly is one of those southern people who "have not gotten over the vicious habit of not believing what they don't wish to believe."

You have to be pretending to be this ignorant? The Facts are what they are. There is no IF .You don't even understand the things you're posting. Everyone on this board knows you're "intellect" So I'll just let your silly posting stand on their own.

 

[whitepug6]

If African-Americans had been fighting for the confederacy throughout the war, then why would the Richmond Examiner publish this in January, 1864?

This is real history, not rolo lies.

 

[whitepug6]

If African-Americans had fought for the confederacy during the war, why would the St. Louis Republic publish this in 1891?

"On the much disputed question as to whether the South ever enlisted negro [sic.] soldiers, General Shelby writes to a friend denying that it was ever done. He himself, he says, solicited General Kirby Smith to allow him to enlist 10,000 negroes and move into Kansas, but General Smith’s reply was, “No; we will win or go to the grave before we enlist the negro.” “I thought it was a mistake,” says General Shelby, “in our leaders not placing blacks in the field, nor have I changed my opinion.”

 

[whitepug6]

If African-Americans had fought for the confederacy during the war, then why would Georgia governor Joseph E. Brown say this to the Georgia General Assembly on 15 February 1865?

"The [Jefferson Davis] administration, by its unfortunate policy, having wasted our strength and reduced our armies, and being unable to get free men into the field as conscripts, and unwilling to accept them in organizations with officers of their own choice, will, it is believed, soon resort to the policy of filling them up by the conscription of slaves.

"I am satisfied that we may profitably use slave labor, so far as it can be spared from agriculture, to do menial service in connection with the army, and thereby enable more free white men to take up arms; but I am quite sure that any attempt to arm slaves will be a great error. If we expect to continue the war successfully, we are obliged to have the labor of most of them in the production of provisions.

"But if this difficulty were surmounted, we cannot rely on them as soldiers, They are now quietly serving us at home, because they do not wish to go into the army, and they fear, if they leave us, the enemy will put them there. If we compel them to take up arms, their whole feeling and conduct will change, and they will leave us by the thousands. A single proclamation by President Lincoln – that all who will desert us after they are forced into service, and go over to him, shall have their freedom, be taken out of the army, and be permitted to go into the country in his possession, and receive wages for their labor – would disband them by brigades. Whatever may be our opinion of their normal condition or their true interest, we can not expect them if they remain with us, to perform deeds of heroic valor when they are fighting to continue the enslavement of their wives and children. It is not reasonable for us to demand it of them, and we have little cause to expect the blessing of Heaven upon our effort if we compel them to perform such a task.

"If we are right, and Providence designed them for slavery, He did not intend that they should be a military people. Whenever we establish the fact that they are a military race, we destroy our whole theory that they are unfit to be free."

This is real history, not rolo lies.

 

[whitepug6]

If African-Americans had fought for the confederacy during the war, then why would the Galveston Daily News publish this on 15 June 1864?

"NEGRO TROOPS. — The catastrophe of the Yankees at Fort Pillow, like their rout at Ocean Pond [Olustee, Florida], and other mishaps that have befallen them of late, is attributed by themselves to the cowardice of their negro [sic.] allies. We are well satisfied that the result in each of the cases would have been the same, if the places of the negroes had been held by Yankees. But at the same time we believe that the presence of the negroes hastened our victories and made them easier. We need not say to Southern readers that the negro has no qualities out of which a soldier can be manufactured. Any reliance on him in that way is sure to bring disappointment and disaster. An army composed in any degree of such troops is an army with a weak point, that may always be beaten through by an adversary who knows how to use his opportunities. Hence it is that we hold that the enrollment of negro troops has brought into their armies an element of positive weakness, and given us a great advantage. The unnatural and diabolical attempt to turn slaves against their own masters reacts upon those who conceived the villany, and renders their overthrow more certain and speedy. In this as in other ways, the institution of slavery is being miraculously vindicated by the events of the war."

 

[FeralDawg]

If African-Americans were confederate soldiers, then why did confederate army regulations restrict enlistment to "free white men"?

the Cherokee Indian Cavalry and Stand Watie dares to refute this oh great historian.
History is more than merely black and white as I've said before. There are always exceptions.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Really , then why do you think that during the war, when every able body man in the South was away at war....blacks didn't massively escape or riot or rise up??

Why do you think, that while Confederate armies had blacks in their ranks....Union armies put them in all black units and used them as cannon fodder?


I'll hang up and listen.

That is rank revisionist BS. The south had slave patrols everywhere in The War and massive numbers still fled north.
They usually waited for a Northern Army though, it was near certain death otherwise.
You obviously can't imagine having lived every day of Your life being property, more so, never having met a member of Your Family Who had ever spent a day as a free person. Only the truly exceptional could throw those mental shackles off as easily as Your little fiction suggest.

 

[HeulenHund2]

But were bestowed rights by Congress. Don't argue history with me.

He's owning You, maybe it's ''The Will Of Providence''.
Perhaps You were put on this Earth by Your maker to be owned.

 

[whitepug6]

the Cherokee Indian Cavalry and Stand Watie dares to refute this oh great historian.
History is more than merely black and white as I've said before. There are always exceptions.

Uh, you are aware that many Cherokee men owned African-American slaves?

 

[whitepug6]

Where are all the neo-confederate apologists? Apparently they take after their great-grandaddies because as soon as they get subjected to some US Army firepower, they retreat or surrender.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Where are all the neo-confederate apologists? Apparently they take after their great-grandaddies because as soon as they get subjected to some US Army firepower, they retreat or surrender.

See this is where We differ.
Southerners fought extremely well, I'm not arguing might is right.
The NAZIs fought well, so do ISIS fighters. They are on the wrong side of Human decency though. That is what makes Their side wrong and Our side right, not Who fights best.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

That is rank revisionist BS. The south had slave patrols everywhere in The War and massive numbers still fled north.
They usually waited for a Northern Army though, it was near certain death otherwise.
You obviously can't imagine having lived every day of Your life being property, more so, never having met a member of Your Family Who had ever spent a day as a free person. Only the truly exceptional could throw those mental shackles off as easily as Your little fiction suggest.

Evidence of the uprising? Who was there to kill them? Kids? Old men? Women? Massive numbers fled North? Some did...but the LARGE MAJORITY stayed and kept working and doing what they always did. So you must think they were very stupid or just a bunch of cowards?

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Where are all the neo-confederate apologists? Apparently they take after their great-grandaddies because as soon as they get subjected to some US Army firepower, they retreat or surrender.

You're making my point. You're really very ignorant. You don't even understand the context or time frames of the things you're posting. Now you make this stupid comment. Southern Army's while under manned and equipped whipped the Union Armies at will. Won the battles but lost the war

The fact is Negro's served in Southern combat units. You're just a goofy angry guy who hates it when the facts contradict you silly world view.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

See this is where We differ.
Southerners fought extremely well, I'm not arguing might is right.
The NAZIs fought well, so do ISIS fighters. They are on the wrong side of Human decency though. That is what makes Their side wrong and Our side right, not Who fights best.

Do you actually think the Civil war was fought to free the slaves? Seriously? In reality it was the second American Revolution.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Evidence of the uprising?

Nobody has mentioned an uprising but You. What would They have fought with, field tools ?
They did desert in huge numbers though, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation and as Northern Armies neared Their homes. Many joined The Northern Military after reaching freedom.