Blacks in the CS Ranks?

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

Hi,
thinking about Michael's (A. Schaffner) point above - is it possible that a Confederate officer who has allowed blacks to be armed in his unit - yet this is in flagrant disregard of Confederate government policy - he might not feel free to mention this in an official report! Perhaps he was arguing for an official endorsement of what was already a reality, at least in his own unit. If a Union officer were to report simply what he sees with his own eyes - what would his motive be for lying?

Regards

First, the officer commanding might not have mentioned it, but I find it difficult to believe the practice would have escaped everyone else's notice and mention. This would include the white men serving alongside the black soldiers, the white men issuing government clothing and equipment to them, and the white men inspecting the unit. The idea that a commander could keep his company or regiment as an island onto itself -- speculative to begin with -- fades away entirely when we start thinking about what being in the army actually means on a day to day basis.

The more intriguing question is the one you raise about the union officer. This isn't the only instance of union soldiers providing anecdotal accounts of blacks in the ranks of the enemy. There are some fleeting examples of black sharpshooters from the Peninsula, for example. But none of them are corroborated by southern accounts, so we're again left with speculation.

The northern officer could be saying that the confederates are using blacks so we should -- the reverse of the southern argument you speculate on above (and just as speculative), but not too dissimilar from some of the arguments made for raising the USCT. The officer could also simply have been confused by unwashed, powder-stained soldiers.

But we don't know and all we can do with accounts like these is speculate. To answer the historical question, however, demands more. If any significant numbers of blacks served in the ranks we ought to see some mention of it in confederate letters or reports. So far, with the exception of the companies mentioned as being raised in Richmond in '65, we don't.

[Johan Steele]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

What we know is that a few black men served the CS for a very short time in fullly segregated companies at the end of the war. We also know of black men fighting under Forrest in TN. We know Cleburne made his proposal which was shot down quite effectively. If there were so many black men in the ranks of the CS are we to assume Cleburne was so incompertent as to have not noticed them?

Are we to assume that there was some massive conspiracy among the CS officer corps not to mention the hordes of black men bearing arms w/in the ranks of the CS Army? Can anyone we a strait face assert that the CS officer corps was either so dishonest or so incompetent as to be unaware of 65,000 black men bearing arms for the CS? Are we to assume that a micromanager on par with Jefferson Davis could be kept in the dark about such an occurance?

I think it is quite clear from the evidence out there that Black men in the ranks of the CS bearing arms were the exception rather than the rule. The idea that 65,000 armed black men serving the CS, or any number even remotely in that range, is pure fiction if not outright farbism. It isn't NUG, PEC or even much more than modern Lost Cause wishful thinking.

Where are the photographs to study, where are the period CS Regimental or private accounts to substantiate such? Where are the records of casualties, pay calls, muster rolls?

The CS govt argued against arming the black man from the start and did not waver until the very last days of the CS. When given the opportunity to accept into service black men in any number they invariably balked. The 1st LA Native Guards never served and were never accepted into CS service. I often hear of CS Companies of Black Confederates from Tennessee & Alabama but none can answer any of the above questions: where did thy serve, where were the casualties buried, what were their arms etc.

In short, unsubstantiated accounts of a black man in the ranks here and there do not 65,000 men make. What it makes, IMO, is a subject on par w/ galtroops. Yes, it happened but on a scale so small as to be insignificant. Frankly, on this board it's a modern reenactorism, aka farbism.

[Sut Lovingood]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

Johan,
I agree that the numbers given by revisionists are most likely inflated, but more impotantly they have no basis of proof.
I would however, as a former soldier and historian, be hesitant to say a man's service should be considered insignificant.
There are records, very few still exhist and no where near the 65,000 mark or even 6,500 mark. The records of black confederates shot at Camp Douglas have been used even by mainstream scholars. For Christ's sake if PBS can bring themselves to admit to it I think it has become common knowledge.
I do not think that anytime someone brings up this topic they are attempting to rewrite history, some may be wanting ulterior motives but the lack of numbers will allow those motives to never come to fruition. But some are honestly just wanting to discuss the topic because there has been a long history of disregarding it or saying it never happened. To be willing to talk about Asian, Hispanic, Native American soldiers is fine, but if the topic of black confederates is brought up, all of a sudden feathers get ruffled. I think that speaks volumes about something on a whole nother level.

[Johan Steele]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

As I said it is a subject on par w/ galtroops. No more and no less. If one is viewed as farbism on this site so should the other.

There is no doubt that women were involved in the ACW dressed as men and in the role of soldiers. Numbers may have approached 700 on both sieds of the issue. I've seen no evidence that would lead me to believe that there were significantly greater numbers than that in the form of black men bearing arms for the CS. I do believe there is an agenda behind the claims of 65k and the patently ridiculous claims of 250,000 black men under arms for the CS.

IMHO the whole "black confederate" discussion detracts from real history. IIRC there have been at least 4 threads on "black confederates" of one form or another in the last couple monthes. This one is 7 pages long at this point. Point me to the same volume of interest on the USCT. It isn't there which is a shame. Frankly if you mention Black Confederates anywhere you'll get a reaction, positive or negative, but mention the USCT and you'll more than likely get a blank look. I prefer history to the agenda driven fiction of the Black Confederate.

I ask the same questions over and over and an answer is never forthcoming. Hell, recently I've been called a bigot because I dared to question the existance of 65,000 black confederate men under arms. I can answer, w/ very little effort, all of those questions above for the USCT. And with a little more digging I can answer do the same with most CS regiments. There are and there should be standards to research and to history. As Living Historians, especially those of us on the AC, we need to portray or give actual historical facts and information to the public. We are the teachers of a period that is all but ignored. Passing the obvious fiction of 65,000 black men under arms in in the CS off as history kills any credibility we have.

This is the Authentic Campaigner not History.com; we're supposed to strive for excellence in research and in authentic living history or reenacting.

I've said it so often I'm sick of saying it. Yes there were black men who served the CS and they numbered in the millions. They built the roads, repaired the RR's, built the fortifications and did yeomans work keeping the CS solvent for four years. But very few carried arms and the appreciation for their effort is quite evident in their treatment post war.

In short I think it is right to honor any soldier who served faithfully through four years of hell. But inventing men to honor to fit a modern agenda is not history, frankly to this veteran it's offensive.

[Sut Lovingood]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

Point taken and I understand your view.
I agree that there are some who take this discussion for ammo to be used on a personal quest to bend history to their agenda. I do not feel that is the case for all who discuss it.
I make my rent by researching topics that have slipped through the cracks. If I depended on researching about Grant's drinking habits, I'd have a piss poor future ahead of me. So it is with this that I study topics, but never for once believing that the odd occasion is the norm. Yet without people, honestly (and without ulterior motive) researching the odd facts, then there is little chance for a true history of the "big picture". There are many books about odd things in the Civil War, are all of these books useless because they weren't the norm?
Yes this is Authentic Campaigner, where people know and find facts that the History channel doesn't. I am glad for that, but I also like that the History channel provides funding on projects. Not all of the research gets into the program, but it goes to repositories where it can be looked at by researchers. Different topic alltogether.
Though I do not disagree with Johan, I think we have some different views about the people who ask. No problem with that.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

I've said it so often I'm sick of saying it. Yes there were black men who served the CS and they numbered in the millions.

Was with you (sorta) until this jem.

Support ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Johan Steele]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

Every slave at work on a project that supported the CS was support that freed (pun intended) a white man for the Army. Every slave that worked a field that provided food was supporting the army. They saw their labor used to support the CS, were they willing support? The CS would not have survived as long as it did without slave labor.

Slavery is a stain upon the honor of this nation. It's gone and good riddance.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

My comment is geared specifically toward the standard of support once held in great esteem here and not in defense of chattel slavery as you seem to assert from the tone of your last post. Specifically, how you went on about the 65,000 number being unsupported and the historical wrong in that but then you casually threw out a "millions" number in the same post which is completely unsupported.

[Auld Pelty]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

I thought this thread was supposed to address a good question by Marvin asking how many black men served as soldiers in the Confederate Army. It appears to have been hijacked into a ridiculous political commentary that is entirely Off Topic. No one has defended slavery in this thread. Not many black men took up arms in the Confederate Army. No one will ever know how many willingly opposed the pillaging and burning of their native country. The fact that no slave rebellion took place, even after Abe Lincoln invited one, is a sound arguement for conflicting loyalties with black Southerners. Interesting there was no mass migration of black people up North until decades after the War....not until after World War II.

[bAcK88]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

People please read Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory edited by James and Lois Horton.

http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Public-History-American-Memory/dp/0807859168/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251348779&sr=1-1

Ignoring the other essays by highly distinguished historians discussing the challenges of portraying this thorny but important subject to the American public (which as costumed HISTORIANS we should try to emulate) Bruce Levine covers this very subject adequately. Yes black Southerners did fire at Yankees but they were not fighting for the Confederate government. Why would they fight for a government that was formed on the believe that African-Americans were inferior in every way to whites? Why would they fight to keep their kin enslaved? Please answer me that.

From the accounts that I have read, the African-Americans that actually fought were personal slaves that accompanied their masters to the front and took up arms when their master fell so as to protect him and his belongings.

I've also noticed that no one brought up the fact that the majority of the soldiers that served in the United States Colored Troops were from the South. Why aren't we recognizing the 134,561 black Southerners who officially served in the US Army to the few hundred that served in the Southern army?

Please enlighten me.

Bill

Oh and the reason why African-Americans didn't migrate North after the War was that they were franchised citizens. It wasn't until after Jim Crow reared his ugly head that you see black Southerners move North in increasing numbers.

[bAcK88]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

The fact that no slave rebellion took place, even after Abe Lincoln invited one, is a sound arguement for conflicting loyalties with black Southerners.

While slave insurrections were certainly the most blatant way black Southerners resisted against slavery, it certainly wasn't the only one. Slaves routinely dragged their feet in performing manual labor (both agricultural and industrial) and broke tools that were important and valuable to their owners, but perhaps the most obvious form of resistance short of an insurrection was simply running away from one's owner.

So while we think insurrections were the only form of rebellion available to enslaved Southerners, these other forms of resistance were employed THOUSANDS of times during the War by this very group, tremendously hurting the Confederate war effort.

[Tom Dodson]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

It seems we have a never ending thread about something that was a non factor in the War. True the impressing of slaves to dig fortifications did free white Southern soldiers to serve in the ranks. It is also true that there were many thousand black soldiers in segregated units in the Federal army. The only real chance they had to make a difference was thrown away at the Crater when they were not allowed to lead the attack they had trained to lead.
The South was outnumbered so badly anyway it is doubtful that the small number of blacks in blue contributed to the North's victory. It is also doubtful that the small numbers of blacks who served as soldiers for the South made any difference.
The entire issue was just a "side show to the big show", to quote Sam Watkins.
Tom Dodson

[Johan Steele]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

"Small number of blacks in blue?" Please read about the USCT and their numbers. Their contribution was far from insignificant.

Then please read how many slaves there were in the CS. That was the majority of support given by the black population of the CS. And yes the slave population of the CS numbered in the millions. Every slave blacksmith making horseshoes, every slave planting food or fodder crops, every slave seamstress working fabric found 10% of their masters (often more) crops, coin or product "tithed" by the CS govt. That is support willing or otherwise and it is a far more significant materially and more relevent subject than that of "Black Confederates."

[Tom Dodson]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

In comparison to the total number of troops in the Union army the number of blacks would be small.
Tom Dodson

[Johan Steele]

Re: Blacks in the CS Ranks?

http://www.civilwararchive.com/unioncol.htm

More men than the Regular Army and more men than several states provided.

No one will find a CSCT and not because they were integrated but because they existed in one's and two's.

Nothing political Auld, merely history and the notation that there are those willing to distort it.