Enlisted African Confederates

[boreguard]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

Allow me to add one more bullet point to Mr. Christiansen's post.

4. Understand that slavery wasn't as popular among poor whites in the South (no middle class) because it, slavery, competed with these folks for jobs. One big example is the court house in Vicksburg, MS. which was built by a construction company using slave labor. Most, if not all the crafts, of that period were performed by slaves under direction of master craftsmen.

Point ? Poor whites all around the South were many times edged out of jobs, contracts, and the like to companies and plantation owners who owned slaves and utilized them as their labor force outside the traditional "pickin cotton" mindset. Thus the need for patriotisim and the protection of states rights to rally the masses, not wholly the protection of slavery.

Now that statement will probably stir the pot. Being from the deep South (Louisiana) and very objective as it pertains to this topic I understand that'll fly in the face of my fellow Sons of Confederate Veteran members, but by the same token I don't find that slavery was as demonic as modern groups (NAACP, universities, and similar) tend to portray it during the Antebellum period. That is not to say that there weren't abuses', just that there's way more depth and breadth to the subject than modern Civil Rights, and other groups realize or admit.

The reason we don't have more blacks interested in this hobby is more culture related than any existence of an enthusiast being discriminatory.

Dennis Neal

[Gary of CA]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

1) Thank you Ranger Dabney for sharing your insights!

2) Many books were mentioned but the best book I've read so far is Univ. of Virginia's Prof. Jordan's Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia. I wish someone would do a similar treatment for other states. I've got Kevin Levine's Confederate Emancipation and will be getting Chandra Manning's book soon.

3) boreguard makes a good point about poor whites not wanting to compete with slaves. That continued long after the war. The notion of keeping things "status quo ante" in the post-war South was one of the reason why the Bonus Marchers of WW I were denied their promised money. Background: Among the very first American soldiers to see combat in WW I were our black troops. The Allies wanted the US Army distributed as penny-packets to reinforce their own exhausted armies. General Pershing refused, wanting the American Army to enter the war as a single entity under American command. As a concession, he allowed our black soldiers to fight first alongside the French (and the French loved them). Those men saw more combat than other units. When the bonus law was passed, it awarded combat pay based on time in combat. Inadvertantly, this resulted in black veterans receiving a bigger bonus than their white counterparts. Southern politicians feared it would upset the social status - putting the blacks ahead of the poor whites. Consequently, they prevented the payments. In protest, many veterans gathered in Washington. MacArthur disobeyed Hoover's order and set the army loose on the veterans (why Dug-out Doug is not liked by me). A compromise was reached that delayed the payments for 20 years.

4) There seems to be a growing awareness in the black community about the Tuskegee Airman, the Buffalo Soldiers and the 54 Massachusetts. The Presidio in San Francisco houses a Buffalo Soldier Museum (but I've never seen it opened). Hopefully the community awareness will spill over into the USCT and lead to greater participation.

5) There's a new opera, Appomattox, by David Glass that will be premiered by the San Francisco Opera Company. They finished casting for supernumeraries and among them will be blacks representing the USCT.

[Prodical Reb]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

Found this floating out on the WWW. Is this pretty factual or is it somebody' conjecture or political spin promoting an agenda. This is from USGENNET an web place for geneology.

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

It has a bunch of quotes and the site appears to be at least 4 years old, so it may be outdated. I found this thread via the search engine here and it seemed like an appropriate place.

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

The website you have referenced does not necessarily give the user any new perspectives but it does consolidate various sources onto a single website.

[cap tassel]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

There is nothing at all wrong with repeating other people's research. In some places it's absolutely required in order to explain your own work. In this case integrity is only to be found in meeting the points made by the person making the 65k estimation.

Personally I don't care if there were 65k or 45k black southerners in the ranks. The exact number doesn't matter to me the same as the exact total number of Confederates which is also unknown. Either way, the only respectable thing is to treat it as anything else and find the best answers possible by honest to goodness research.

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

I do not discredit the person who has amassed those sources; however there was a query "Is this pretty factual or is it somebody' conjecture or political spin promoting an agenda?" That answer was no, the website is not saying anything new or controversial that people, like myself, who have certainly also amassed primary and secondary sources; have not seen before.

[Prodical Reb]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

Thanks Emannuel for confirming the accuracy of this page with the stated caveats. You are much more knowledgable in this area of expertise. I was hoping you would look at this, as this is in another public type place for geneologist or those looking for their ancestors.

[Johan Steele]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

I'll put my money w/ the words of legit researchers like Mr White or Mr Dabney

The site mentioned above repeats some fanciful research and grossly takes items out of context. In the bullet points IIRC the same men are mentioned repeatedly as an effort to inflate numbers. Men raised in the last month of the war figure prominantly. The 22 talking points and that is what they are, talking points intended to slap down "anti southern liberals" are full og inacurarcies and invention. The lack of footnotes or documentation is quite telling about said site and others who literally do nothing more than cut & paste the "research."

Just one example is how Dr. Steiner has been repeatedly discredited on the subject of 3000 black men. Particularly by looking at the letters and diaries of the men who would have been on the receiving end of 3,000 black CS soldiers... they aren't mentioned, at all. A quick study of similar CS letters & diaries doesn't mention them in the Stonewall Brigade (a prominant unit of the command observed), at all.

I don't see how the site mentioned can in any way bring a researcher closer to the 65,000 or greater dreamed about by the Lost Cause. At best 13,000 might be imagined and IMO that is grossly inflated. A 65K assertion w/ nothing but out of context quotes and outright invention to back it up is just a deceptive assertion w/ nothing behind it.

Black CS soldiers deserve a place on this site right beside galtroops; yes they existed but in numbers so insignificant as to be considered modern farb bait.

This is the AC... where facts and legitimate research are the preference. Out of context, out right inventions etc don't belong here.

[cap tassel]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

I'll put my money w/ the words of legit researchers like Mr White or Mr Dabney

The site mentioned above repeats some fanciful research and grossly takes items out of context. In the bullet points IIRC the same men are mentioned repeatedly as an effort to inflate numbers. Men raised in the last month of the war figure prominantly. The 22 talking points and that is what they are, talking points intended to slap down "anti southern liberals" are full og inacurarcies and invention. The lack of footnotes or documentation is quite telling about said site and others who literally do nothing more than cut & paste the "research."

Just one example is how Dr. Steiner has been repeatedly discredited on the subject of 3000 black men. Particularly by looking at the letters and diaries of the men who would have been on the receiving end of 3,000 black CS soldiers... they aren't mentioned, at all. A quick study of similar CS letters & diaries doesn't mention them in the Stonewall Brigade (a prominant unit of the command observed), at all.

I don't see how the site mentioned can in any way bring a researcher closer to the 65,000 or greater dreamed about by the Lost Cause. At best 13,000 might be imagined and IMO that is grossly inflated. A 65K assertion w/ nothing but out of context quotes and outright invention to back it up is just a deceptive assertion w/ nothing behind it.

Black CS soldiers deserve a place on this site right beside galtroops; yes they existed but in numbers so insignificant as to be considered modern farb bait.

This is the AC... where facts and legitimate research are the preference. Out of context, out right inventions etc don't belong here.

It's naive to ordain legitimacy to a researcher. It is the research itself that should be judged for its legitimacy. ;)

Essentially telling someone to take someone's word for it doesn't suffice or sit well with me. It smacks of authoritarianism and ideology. Again, all that has really been said about the information on the site is that it "repeats some fanciful research and grossly takes items out of context." And now it is full of "inaccuracies and invention." And again, strangely quite thereafter. How much do we really know about Dr. Steiner's calculations and more importantly his method? It gets more and more if'y the more assumptions are subsequently based on previous assumptions. When they are, they should be recognized as such. It's important to keep track of how long the train of assumptions gets. Whether correct or not on his number the author of that web site did acknowledge the use of assumptions and was far more respectable by laying his work out and he did at least list resources. Further, his site isn't even the best argument on the subject or most complete. There are some things even from his own list of sources that make a better case I'd say. If all we needed were diary entries and letters there wouldn't be so much mystery in all else that gets talked about on the forums. To suggest so amounts to moving the goal posts.

You said, "at best 13,000 might be imagined." What makes you think so? What do you base that on?

[Johan Steele]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

My own research and looking at LEGITIMATE research by men I trust and know aren't pushing an agenda. Several from this forum.

The site mentioned is a far cry from the best or even tolerable levels of research. It is at best a compilation of other peoples research, some of it quite questionable.

My own research pointed to perhaps 1400 black men bearing arms in the CS. I've seen the accounts of 13,000 and while I find that quite high I can understand the methodolgy that comes up w/ such a number. I've also seen the numbers of 65k, 100k and even 250k... numbers pulled out of whole cloth to suit a particular agenda.

As I said: Black CS soldiers deserve a place on this site right beside galtroops; yes they existed but in numbers so insignificant as to be considered modern farb bait. Prove me wrong.

[Mcouioui]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

It is a very complex subject, I have write two years ago an article on the subject, Entitled " the confederated black soldiers, the myth or the reality "
It is an article in French, if there are people who masters French or one the courage to translate, I give you the link?!

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

I beg kindly that this thread remain with as many first person accounts or analysis thereof as possible.

To substantiate tens of thousands or refute the presence of documentable few hundreds throughout all threater of operations during the conflict are both ridiculous.

The bottom line really to this subject is that it is a proven fact that both enslaved and free blacks were used by the Confederate government including their armies and its citizens to sustain the war effort. This subject, fascinating as is, loses critical elements that many a Confederate soldier would have gone hungry without the sustainment of slavery (as well as crops turned over, sold, or confiscated) in the production of corn and wheat. Many a Confederate soldier would have had less clothing without slave labor in cotton growth. Many a Confederate soldier would have died without the labor of black men and women in hospitals from Richmond to Texas. Many Confederate soldiers would have not been able to shield themselves from sheets of bullets and shrieking shells had not black men been engaged in the construction of miles of fortifications. Many Confederate soldiers would have lacked ammunition, weapons, and transportion without black men employed in factories and for railroad companies. These efforts for whatever reason have been pushed to the side to uphold combatants. Ultimately, millions of black Southerners, free and enslaved, were critically important to the Confederate war effort. Just the same whether the United States government took up the fundamental issue of enslavement or not, tens of thousands are clearly noted as having fled into Union lives and began to carve out a new life as free people. Richard Eppes of Prince George County never had a serious runaway issue until May-August 1862 when of 130 slaves, 106 ran away with the Army of the Potomac and their naval escort, one more ran after this period. At war's end, six had served with the U.S. Navy and one lied about his age and enlisted with the 19th U.S. Colored Troops. Only a few of his former slaves returned to work as freedmen.

Critically important to the Union war effort were thousands of fleeing people who never fired a shot at Confederate troops. These people unloaded thousands of ships, cooked for troops, were paid servants to Northern citizens who also ended up with Union troops, labored in hospitals, constructed fortifications, worked on railroads, and drove wagons.

This in fact was a national war and everyone from Maine to California, black, white, Indian, Chinese, and mixed heritage were affected by the war. No one should deny any of these players the place they deserve to be remembered in our own minds and in society at large.

[FlatLandFed]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

"No one should deny any of these players the place they deserve to be remembered in our own minds and in society at large."

Here, here! Well said.
Paul Hadley

[ContinentalMorganGuard]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

Ok, well its not thousands or even hundred's but it was note worthy... JEB Stuart mentions in his report to General T. J. Jackson on what his troopers did at the battle of Falling Waters, Va on July 2, 1861. He specificially mentions one black "Servant" and if I've understood correctly a second one killing Federal troops during the battle. I couldn't find the actual report but I did find these excepts and secondary para-pharsing. So, there is one small account of Blacks taking up arms for the Confederacy. However, I understand they were more then likely slaves, and probably we're just defending themselves more likely then trying to be active participants, but we'll never know other then what the report states.

"Stuart reported to Jackson the capture of a whole company of the Fifteenth Pennsylvania, with the exception of the captain, after killing three; that one of the enemy was killed by Captain Carter's negro servant and one of Captain Patrick's company; that the captured 49 of the enemy were from the Fifteenth Pennsylvania, the First Wisconsin and the Second United States cavalry. Jackson highly commended Stuart and his command, and wrote of the former, "He has exhibited those qualities which are calculated to make him eminent in his arm of the service." Jackson concluded his report with the reasons which induced him to advance on the enemy. They were: "A desire to capture him if his strength was only a few hundred; if he should appear in force, to hold him in check until his baggage wagons could be loaded and moved in column to the rear."

[Longbranch 1]

Re: Enlisted African Confederates

Sirs and Madames,

Thank you for the responses to my questions about re-enactors of color and the reasons for more or less participation.

As usual, the answers inevitably lead to more questions.
And more research.
I really did not mean for this to evolve into a " Under Arms" numbers question.
Remember, the initial questions were caveated with " PARTICIPATION, under arms, or not".

Definitely have no problem with that....., another cloudy morsel of history to explore.

Again,
Thanks and Regards,
Kevin Ellis ,
26th NCT