Which individual from the Civil War would be the most interesting to sit down and speak with over dinner or a tasty beverage? Patrick Cleburne
By Paul Siedel
The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable
Copyright © 2025, All Rights Reserved
Editor’s note: The subject of the annual Dick Crews Memorial Debate at the January 2025 Roundtable meeting was: “Which individual from the Civil War would be the most interesting to sit down and speak with over dinner or a tasty beverage?” Five members made presentations on the topic; the article below was one of those five presentations.
It was while working as a reporter for the Memphis Commercial Appeal that I sat down with General Patrick R. Cleburne, a division commander in the Confederate Army of Tennessee, in January of 1864. Over glasses of superb Irish whiskey, we discussed his proposal to tap the untapped resource of over one million Africans held in bondage and to offer them their freedom, if they would only take up arms and serve in the Confederate Army.
Patrick Cleburne, being a European, saw people of African descent in a totally different way than did most people in the American South. Cleburne believed that the implementation of the above-mentioned policy along with the advancement of scientific farming methods and the expansion of the farm machinery industry would eventually over the years bring about the end of slavery. He believed that if his policy were implemented during the war, the North would lose a valuable psychological weapon, and furthermore, this would make an alliance between the Confederacy and European states easier to implement. It would also ease the South’s fear of a general slave rebellion. Many Southerners believed that they had the proverbial “tiger by the tail.” They didn’t like maintaining the institution, but they didn’t dare let it go. However, the general mindset of the average Southerner proved too much to overcome.
In the end, the proposal went nowhere, even though Robert E. Lee had written the authorities several times endorsing Black recruitment. While Cleburne’s reasoning on this issue was sound, he had misjudged the mood of the South. He was born and reared in Ireland and had served in the British Army. He owned no slaves and may have had a good deal of difficulty understanding the feelings of those who did. I told the general that even if the proposal did go through, it would affect the outcome of the war very little. When I said this to him, he just shrugged his shoulders and said, “What other choice do we have?”
So having said that, it is my contention, which is open for discussion, that the recruitment of men of African descent into the Confederate Army would only have prolonged the struggle, not won it for the South. The cards were stacked against the Confederacy from day one. The overwhelming industrial power of the North along with the reluctance of European powers to become involved in the conflict would overwhelm a nation whose economy was based on large-scale farming. The South’s refusal to recognize these facts and their belief that they could overcome them and win such a war were sheer fantasy and a belief that brought about their ultimate ruin.
Go back to the fourth argument >>
Return to the Great Debate of 2025 home >>