Throughout the war, President Jefferson Davis had emphasized the need to defend Confederate territory. But after sacrificing several armies while still losing territory, Davis now reversed course. In his annual message to the Confederate Congress, he explained that the loss of Atlanta and the Shenandoah Valley gave the military more flexibility by freeing it from having to defend cities or regions:
“The truth so patent to us must, ere long, be forced upon the reluctant Northern mind. There are no vital points on the preservation of which the continued existence of the Confederacy depends. There is no military success of the enemy which can accomplish its destruction. Not the fall of Richmond, nor Wilmington, nor Charleston, nor Savannah, nor Mobile, nor all combined, can save the enemy from the constant and exhaustive drain of blood and treasure which must continue until he shall discover that no peace is attainable unless based on the recognition of our indefeasible rights.”
To some, this sounded like nothing less than a call for guerrilla warfare against the Federals, which could degrade into irregular operations with brutal results not sanctioned by the Articles of War. It also contradicted Davis’s own military policy, which had always been to defend key points against the enemy and remain on the defensive whenever possible.
The message did not mention the U.S. presidential elections scheduled for the next day, as Davis wanted to avoid making any statement that could push northerners to vote for Abraham Lincoln. Regarding the economy, Davis called the financial outlook “far from discouraging.” He asked lawmakers for measures to increase military recruitment, including waiving some exemptions from the Conscription Act.
The most surprising part of Davis’s message was his recommendation of “a radical modification in the theory of the law” regarding slaves. Davis argued that slaves had a relationship with the national government in that they had been impressed into military service to build fortifications and fieldworks for limited amounts of time. But now Davis argued, “The slave bears another relation to the State–that of a person.”
For slaves who demonstrated “loyalty and zeal” in helping the army under dangerous conditions, Davis reasoned, “the relation of person predominates… and it would seem proper to acquire for the public service the entire property in the slave, and to pay therefor due compensation rather than to impress his labor for short terms.” Davis then asked, “Should he the slave be retained in servitude, or should his emancipation be held out to him as a reward for faithful service, or should it be granted at once on the promise of such service?”
The president answered, “The policy of engaging to liberate the negro on his discharge after service faithfully rendered seems to me preferable to that of granting immediate manumission, or that of retaining him in servitude.” Davis thus requested legislation allowing the government to buy 40,000 slaves from slaveholders and use them for military labor for the rest of the war.
If enacted, this law would replace the current law allowing the military to impress slaves into service without compensation for limited time periods. As the military would then be expected to teach slaves “in the manner of encamping, marching, and parking trains,” the “length of service adds greatly to the value of the negro’s labor.”
After “service faithfully rendered,” Davis recommended that slaves be rewarded with freedom. This was a revolutionary request to initiate a compensated emancipation program. However, since slavery was a state issue, each state would have to decide for itself on that. Davis argued that such a grant by the states “would doubtless be more readily accorded as a reward for past faithful service, and a double motive for zealous discharge of duty would thus be offered to those employed by the Government, their freedom, and the gratification of the local attachment which is so marked a characteristic of the negro, and forms so powerful an incentive to his action.”
But Davis remained skeptical about allowing slaves to become combat soldiers. He wrote, “Until our white population shall prove insufficient for the armies we require, and can afford to keep in the field; to employ as a soldier the negro who has been merely trained to labor, and as a laborer the white man, accustomed from his youth to the use of firearms, would scarcely be deemed wise or advantageous by any… But should the alternative ever be presented of subjugation or the employment of the slave as a soldier, there seems no reason to doubt what should then be our decision.” This reminded people of Major-General Patrick R. Cleburne’s radical suggestion to let slave serve as combatants in January.
An editorial in the Richmond Whig countered that trading service for freedom wrongly assumed “that the condition of freedom is so much better for the slave than servitude, that it may be bestowed upon him as a reward.” If implemented, it would be “a repudiation of the opinion held by the whole South… that servitude is a divinely appointed condition for the highest good of the slave.”
The Whig led the opposition to Davis’s proposals on slaves, followed closely by the Richmond Dispatch and the Mercury and Courier in Charleston. Among Davis’s biggest supporters in the press were the Richmond Sentinel, the Mobile Register, and the Wilmington Journal.
In conclusion, Davis stated that he was willing to negotiate with the North regarding peace, but only if the North recognized southern independence and not “our unconditional submission and degradation… This is the true path to peace; let us tread it with confidence in the assured result.”
Bibliography
- Catton, Bruce and Long, E.B. (ed.), Never Call Retreat: Centennial History of the Civil War Book 3. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. (Kindle Edition), 1965.
- Faust, Patricia L. (Patricia L. Faust ed.), Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.
- Foote, Shelby, The Civil War, A Narrative: Red River to Appomattox. New York: Vintage Civil War Library, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group (Kindle Edition), 2011.
- Long, E.B. with Long, Barbara, The Civil War Day by Day. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc., 1971.
- McPherson, James M., Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford History of the United States Book 6, Oxford University Press (Kindle Edition), 1988.
- Thomas, Emory M., The Confederate Nation. HarperCollins e-books, Kindle Edition, 1976.
- Ward, Geoffrey C., Burns, Ric, Burns, Ken, The Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.