white, but also for workers in general within the war. >> right. i think that's a great point. there's an important exception, and that is when lincoln issues conscription, if you're wealthy, you can get out as conscription, you could pay a substitute, but it wasn't nearly the degree to which it was in the confederacy. after all, the confederacy is unambiguous about saying we are forming this new nation to protect and to propagate slavery. so this new nation, only a third, less than a third of the population is even slave owners. it'd be like saying, it would be like the 1% of the nation today forming a new nation and assuming that everyone else is on board. now, it is true, you know, that

very few poor people today oppose the system of capitalism because they figure, you know, hey, i might be poor now, but in three years, five years, ten years, i can get rich. much the same way the non slave owners, most nonslave owning southerners didn't oppose the institution. the easiest way to get rich, buy a slave and go to the southwest. but jefferson davis and the confederate leaders were much more explicit about acknowledging this natural hierarchy. it's reflected in the pro- slavery ideal reflects a natural hierarchy, and one should respect it. one should know one's place. it's a superb point. and you're absolutely right that marks understands that this is what the british working class are arguing for or fighting against. in essence, it's an acknowledgement that race and class are profoundly

intertwined. one of the central differences is that while the british working classes were the most vigorous champions of abolitionism, the northern working classes in the united states as a group were the most racist because they had to compete with blacks for jobs. england had it easy. there were fewer blacks than in the united states. it meant there was less reason for the working classes to feel threatened by. yeah, there's a microphone. >> one of the things that struck me about -- going back to the marx, the london workers meeting, he talks about how the silence is admirable.

>> yes. >> and it struck me that that's actually in a way what lincoln is doing in his first inaugural. >> that's exactly right. a great point. >> he's seeking out a position of silence and sort of, and that's in a way after sumpter -- dug lass is also able to then be part of the status quo as opposed to fighting against the status quo. >> that's a very good point. >> that position is a position of power. when silence equals defense of the status quo, suddenly silence becomes a position of power as opposed -- and puts the southerners, the confederacy, in the mode of the actors who have to defend their actions as opposed to those who remain silent and don't defend their silence. >> that's a great point. that's a great point. can we bring the mike down here? >> i agree with that point especially since the south is sort of characterized traditionally as the hot-headed people. >> right. >> and i think marks kind of -- sorry.

>> that was the stereotype. >> and i think marks kind of addressed -- >> you're a living contradiction to it. >> in his other article, the civil war and the united states when he talks about how the confederacy wasn't a country at all but a battle slogan. >> yes. >> and think that was a really cool point, and when i read that, i was kind of like, oh, yes, because, you know, it was kind of just a -- like a lot of the actions just seemed very much about the actions themselves rather than the motivations behind them. >> yeah. i think that's a very good point. the confederacy from the beginning, the act of secession, it was much more action than a lot of -- i mean the theories and the development except for slavery kind of followed suit. i mean they cobbled together constitution, you know, in a matter of weeks and practically

copied the u.s. constitution except guaranteed slavery in it in perpetuity and explicitly made clear that any new territory is -- slavery's legal, so -- let's move on because we still have a fair amount to cover. here's lincoln's policy on the war. as you've mentioned, preserve the union. that's his chief aim. it's always his chief aim. prevent border states from seceding. that is crucial for reasons that i mentioned. also kentucky has enormous resources. it's a huge state. and frederick douglass, you know, refers -- says that the border states are a millstone around lincoln's neck. in his view -- douglass responds to the worry about the border states, in essence, by saying,

well, lincoln has already shown that his administration is very efficien efficient at suspending habeas corpus. it's silencing and imprisoning northern copperhead democrats. and just do that more vigorously, more aggressively. william stewart at one point during the war said he could have any northerner imprisoned in 24 hours. douglass said, go for it. then the border states aren't a problem. you know, if border state politician starting threatening you, you just throw him in prison. it's, after all, civil war. prevent social revolution. lincoln was especially compared to abolitionists and many other republicans, even, he is not a revolutionary. he wants to -- he wants to preserve the union without a social revolution. he knows ending slavery is a social revolution. that's why he comes late to turning the war, the union also

into war to end slavery. throughout really even into 1863 after the emancipation proclamation, hiss policy toward the border states, the loyal slave states is still gradual emancipation. compensate masters for loss of their property and colonization. until mid 1863, lincoln is still endorsing colonization. that had been his policy. as i've mentioned, it's a very dpradual solution to slavery. it follows the vision of the founders. that has been his policy from his first articulation from his hatred of slavery. and so this is an oversimplification, but in a sense you could say that lincoln's policy on the war and much of his administration is that it assumed that the u.s. was and would remain a white man's democracy. after all, to turn it into a democracy in which blacks are equal under the law, that's a social revolution.

that is a social revolution. so lincoln from the outset wants to sideline initially blacks within the united states. and yet from the beginning of the war, whether it's frederick dug lass's voice, whether it's "harper's weekly," the most popular magazine, here's "harper's weekly" illustrating what's front and center of the front page? a black man. he's a black driver who's actually driving lincoln to the inaugural address. when lincoln calls for troops explicitly prohibits blacks from fighting, yet many blacks fight as independent soldiers. they're not legal but they want nothing more than to be able to shoot and kill their old slave owners and slave owners more generally. and "harper's weekly" in

illustrating from an eyewitness sketch artist the battle of bull run, the first major battle of the war, front and center of "harper's weekly's" illustration are two black union soldiers, right here and right here. it's not league, but "harper's weekly" and the americans understand that you cannot sideline african-americans as part of this war, and they're fighting from the beginning. and here's an engraving based on a drawing by winslow homer who got his start working as a sketch artist for "harper's weekly." he actually -- homer did the sketch of the inaugural. it's a camp scene. this is an african-american, black man dancing. it has racist connotations now. it's kind of a black min central

jump jim crow dance and yet it's rendered very seriously by homer. we don't see his face. and more importantly, he is at the center of this social life. the centerpiece of the war is the black man. is african-americans. you can't exclude them. you can't simply try to preserve the union, pretend that blacks are not around. from the beginning blacks are accepted as sailors on integrated ships. why are they accepted as sailors, not as soldiers? one, the navy is not -- is outside of the public gaze. it's not considered that significant. it's one thing for blacks to serve as sailors on integrated ships. it's another thing to put guns in the hands of black soldiers, which are in the front of public view and tell them to go shoot whites. secondly, blacks as sailors have

a long tradition in american history of essentially being masters of the waterways. they understood the rivers, the ocean. they were more comfortable with ships than most whites. the most integrated communities in the united states from the revolution of the civil war were onboard ship. and everyone understood that. and, further, if you want to try to segregate the ship, that's lunacy. it's too small. when blacks are eventually allowed to serve as soldiers in the northern army, they're still segregated, but that's much easier because it's on land. so from the beginning, sailors are on integrated ships. blacks from the beginning fight as inpent dependent soldiers, and there are a number of examples. one, nicholas biddle. he's in a sense one of the first casualties of the civil war. he's a black man who joins the

washington artilleryists as an independent to defend the capital. this white mob in maryland attacks, he is aided and taken to safety by his fellow white officer. and then william johnson, the black correspondent for the pine and palm who fights as an independent soldier in the first battle of bull run in manassas which you read. how many of you remember what johnson says? here's part of it. he's describing the confederacy's victory. at first manassas. he says -- among other things, he says, i was not alone the white man's victory for it was won by slaves. yes, the confederates had three regiments of blacks in the field and they maneuvered like veterans and beat the union men back. this is not guessing, but it's a fact. it has angered our men, and they

say there must be retaliation. there's much talk in high places and by leading men of a call being made of the blacks of the north to enter the army against the southern slaves and by opposing freedom. now, in addition to which this letter occurs, the editor says there's no objective evidence the blacks fought for the confederacy. it is the most controversial topic of the civil war. let me just briefly summarize the controversy then i'm interested in your thoughts on william johnson. the controversy occurs really, it doesn't begin until the 1970s when scholars first start to -- white scholars first start to acknowledge the civil war was first and foremost about slavery. and once scholars begin in the 20th century to acknowledge that slavery is the central cause of the civil war, which implicates the confederacy in ways that are not exactly moral, what i would

call ne-yo-confederates, point to a number of eyewitness accounts like william johnson and describe tens, hundreds of thousands of blacks who loyally supported the confederacy or even fought for them. what does that do? it purges the confederacy from the moral association of slavery. i mean, after all, if hundreds of thousands, even a million blacks fought for the confederacy or supported them, well then how could it be immoral from our anti-racist perspective? today when i say anti-racist, meaning it's socially unacceptable to be racist. it doesn't mean there aren't racists. and in response to the rise in neo-confederate writings describing all the support among african-americans, free blacks and slaves for the confederacy, essentially it's reached a point

now where virtually no liberal white historian will acknowledge that even one black could have fought for the confederacy. that any assumptions that they did are just wrong. and they're not interrogating the sources clearly. so you read an account by this african-american -- and i should say at the time, the voices, the eyewitness voices, the people who identified the blacks may have fought for the confederacy, were mostly african-americans. one of the reasons why william johnson is identifying the fact that the confederate victory was a black victory, that blacks helped the confederates win, is it's his way of spurring the union to say, hey, kconfederacy is making use of blacks, why don't we? we lost this battle. for the first year of the war the union is desperate for a victory.

now, the confederacy legally allowed slaves to be used as laborers to build roads, forts, trenches, fortifications. but it's only the last week of the war, beginning march of '65 where the confederacy legally offered, allowed blacks, allowed slaves to serve as soldiers as a last-ditch attempt to help preserve the confederacy, and virtually no blacks did at that point. what do you make of johnson's account? you also read in your packet an essay by frederick douglass who also describes black confederates. i should say that my interest in black confederacy merged out of frederick douglass.

i've given one talk on it, and i felt like wearing a bull's eye because it's so combustible, especially, you know -- seriously. i don't know. i mean there are very few liberal whites who acknowledge any black fought for the confederacy. here's douglass. it's now pretty well established there are at the present moment many colored men in the confederate army doing duty. not only as laborers but as real soldiers. muskets on their shoulders, bullets in their pockets ready to shoot down loyal troops and do all the soldiers may to destroy the federal government. again -- yeah, go ahead. >> i know they're doing everything and blacks are fighting for the unions, very different implications than fighting for the confederacy. >> yes. >> but i feel like it's still

almost categorized as heroic in here and in the other. >> yes. >> was there any benefit, or were they fighting as slaves, or did they gain anything from this? >> that's -- so the question is, your question assumes you believe william johnson's account of frederick douglass' account. it's a great question. yeah. so the reason why a slave would have actually taken up arms for the confederacy, fought for them even though the confederate -- it's illegal from the confederacy, primarily is because they have to, they're forced to. you know, if your main goal is is surviving, to be an enemy within your own army is the easiest way to die. it's the same reason why the most -- the easiest way to gain your freedom if you're a slave in the south is to be a whistle blower for a plot of an insurrection. you know, if your goal is surviving and ascending economically, it's -- you're --

it's -- many blacks are willing to be what we now call race traders or sellouts. you know, for the same reason they're -- they're -- so -- and to survive. so if you're -- if you're being put to labor, to build a road or for fortification and the master who's overseeing you building this road is now putting a gun at your head and saying, go fight on the front lines because i'd rather have you die than on the front lines. that's essentially what happens, and, in fact, "harper's weekly" has a great image. here's two blacks who are forced -- i mean, you know, the confederate has a gun at their head. saying, you fire the cannon. yeah. >> wasn't joining the army like a good way to escape for slaves as they wering like, under less

close supervision in the army and they were closer to northern militaries? >> yeah, that's a great question. so you're getting a little bit ahead of me, but, so, it depended on who your master was. i should first say the confederacy faced a dilemma. that is, the confederacy did not want to interfere with the master/slave relationship. so the very attempt for the confederacy to acquire slaves as laborers was met with derision on many accounts. and then after the first confiscation act passed in august of 1861, which is an act that allows the union army to confiscate sclavs who have reached their lines, after that point, slaves who are forced to be labors for the confederacy are now by definition near union lines, and the desertion rate is 50% to 70% in some areas.

in fact, the confederacy eventually quits using slaves as laborers because the desertion rate is so high, which leads to the blooder point of all of the eyewitness accounts as blacks serve as confederates. the vast -- 95% of them occur between ft. sumter and the first kconfiscation act, basically th first four months of the war. that's it. and the total numbers we have, i figured, calculated, only a couple thousand. statistically, it's insignificant. it's only symbolically significant because it symbolizes the desire of neo-confederates to purge its confederacy of its detaining of slavery and it symbolizes the inability of white liberals to believe that african-americans can think and act individually rather than as a group.

you know, for the same reason that, you know, according to most african-americans the republican party today opposes their interests. yet 5% to 7% of african-americans are loyal republicans today. in the antebellum period there were roughly 1,200 black masters, blacks who owned slaves. all of them were light-skinned blacks whose fathers had been their master. and until the 1830s southern states allowed masters in their will to bequeath to their sons, not only freedom, but in land and money. so if you're a slave and your dad dies and suddenly you get your freedom and you get 100 or 500 acres and some money, then you have a dream of rising up, you do what you know. and most of almost all of the black masters were in the

communities that most closely resembled the caribbean, which i mentioned, in which free blacks often align with the masters to gain greater rights in the hopes of equality. in louisiana, natchctchenatchez charleston. the different context, why did some jews fight for the nazis? there are two books, statistically insignificant. because they want to survive. why did some slaves reveal an insurrectionary plot? they wanted to survive. they wanted their freedom. that's why. here's "harper's weekly" on the engraving. it illustrates the way in which they do work. forced the slaves to dangerous work. represents a struggle between two negroes and rebel captain.

that's the main reason. the master is saying, i don't want to be on the front line. you're my slave. you go be on the front line. it's not legal. the soldier at the time had a legal definition, but most americans repudiated. if we understood the civil war solely in legal terms that means southern unionists, southern unionists in virtually every state, they're not legal. hundreds if not thousands of women dressed up as men to fight for both sides, they're not legal because it's illegal for women to fight. northern blacks, still legal for them to fight until 1863. john brown's body has -- cast soldiers in a much broader context. john brown ii stanza. he's gone to be a soldier in the army of the war. that's john brown. it's why it's heroic. it's not legal. here's a couple other quotes to

supplement the essay that you read. here's from the official records. now, these are actually late -- these are highly unusual. it's after the first confiscation act. it's in one major saying the captain hennessy captured a colored rebel scout well mounted who had been sent out to watch our movements. and in another, p.l. power says we have turned up 11 bush wackers to try and one rebel negro. so here's a brief soumry of why blacks would fight as souldiers. first as i mentioned, no more than a few thousand. statistically insignificant. they were not legal. it was. a legal status until the last month of the war. the slaves who were put to work as laborers, in most cases of the eyewitness accounts of

soldiers, the masters were making them laborers. saying, you know, i don't want to be on the frontline because i'd rather not die. chances of dying are greater when you're on the front line. i'm going to put a gun to your head and put you on the stwant front line. the reason for free blacks in the south showing loyalty is because they wanted to retain what rights they have. remember, on the eve of secession, every free state -- chief justice tawny makes it clear in dread scott. there were debates about enslaving all three blacks and the desire to retain what rights they had, they showed publicly a support for the secessionist, the confederacy. they don't want to be turned into slaves. so one great example is the louisiana native guards. they never fought but right after louisiana becomes a confederacy, they march down the streets of new orleans in full confederate garb with muskets on their shoulder showing their

public support for the confederacy. ben butler takes louisiana. it's now in union hands. and he interviews some of these native guards. he said, why would you support a nation that totally contradicts who you are? a nation that's conceived in slavery, dedicated to propagate. and their response is, hey, we hated the confederacy, but we hoped to advance to near equality with the whites. that's why. that's why. and as i mentioned, almost all of the eyewitness accounts point to very early in the war, until the first confiscation act. let me just -- whoops. let me just briefly summarize this doug lass evils of the

union war, which is in one of your speeches. it encourages compromise. if there's compromise, any compromise will allow confederacy to persist. deprives us of using 4 million slaves. by making it solely a union war, it gives the rebels the advantage of fighting for the right to govern themselves. in essence, it goes to number five, it gives the rebels a higher moral ground. hey, we're just -- we want the right to govern ourselves as much as the 13 colonies who left britain who were fighting for the right to be independent. we are too. by making -- they're only fighting with one hand. they're not using this potent source of black power. and it encourages england and france to recognize the confederacy, make this an abolition war and reunite the

rebels of the war and make it a union government. and that -- let me jump now to the road to an abolition war. as i've suggested, and from your comments, it begins right away. it begins with blacks joining as independent soldiers for the union. it begins with douglass whose decision not to go to haiti. his understanding that this military war is a golden opportunity to end slavery. and then here are the specific keynotes of it. the first is ben butler's contraband policy, which you know if there lou mazer's "civil war." let me summarize it. may 24th, 1881, ben butter, the massachusetts politician, he