Black Confederates

[gary]

The common interpretation of the officer kissing the baby that is seen with the black woman nearby is that she is the mammy who responsible for caring for the child while the officer (father) marches off to war. The officer, of course, is white.

male nurse, who took care of me in 1979, was a medic in Nam. After being drafted he completed basic training. Upon arriving in Vietnam he refused to carry a weapon in the field. He was not a coward so they made him a medic. When he returned stateside he became a nurse to this day. Was he a soldier? He never fired a weapon. He only saved soldiers' lives, while taking the same risks.

While the first example given is that of a soldier, the second, a musician, was considered a non-combatant and therefore not a soldier. That he might have picked up a gun and shoot at a Union soldier every now and then doesn't make him a soldier either. Let's not confuse 19th Century definitions with our present 20/21st Century definitions. Today we recognized medics as soldiers and award them the Combat Infantry Badge. Back in the 19th Century they weren't considered as soldiers. Enlisting into a Confederate unit as a musician, cook, teamster make one subject to military, but didn't mean (in Confederate eyes) that one was a soldier.

[larry_cockerham]

This is from John Chapla's excellent History of the 48th Virginia, H.E. Howard & Sons, 1989:


On February 12 [65], Col. Dungan went home on leave to get married. He would be gone through February 27. He thus missed the votes that took place in the unit to determine the men's opinion of the establishment of blacks as soldiers in the Confederate army. With no warning as to the nature of the event, the men of Terry's Brigade were called into line on the evening of February 15 and asked their opinion. Those in favor were asked to step four paces to the front. According to one observer, "although it was a new and undiscussed subject with them, a majority voted in the affirmative at once." How members of the 48th felt on the subject is not known. However, the topic remained one of open discussion in the brigade for a number of days. On February 18, Gen. Gordon reported to Gen. Lee the the majority of the Second Corps supported the enlistment of blacks. " The aversion to the measure has in no instance been found strong," Gordon wrote. "The opposition to it is now confined to a very few and... will soon cease to exist in any regiment in the corps."

Folks, seems to me from reading this, that blacks were not exactly recruited for combat service by the Confederate soldier. Any thoughts? Please remember my long held position that slavery was not the foremost topic on the minds of men from southwestern Virginia, eastern Tennessee and northwest North Carolina. They were very minor players in that 'sport' at best. Most of the concentration from the foot soldier was on staying alive and trying to kill as many U.S. soldiers as possible, very much in that order. Dealing with racial matters was WAY down the list.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Two soldiers:

John Anderson
Company E, 4th US Colored Cavalry (Union)
Mustered-in as Bugler 31 December 1863.
Part of African American Civil War Memorial.
Included in the "180,000."

James H. Jackson
Company C, 2nd North Carolina Artillery Regiment (Confederate)
Mustered-in as Bugler 15 August 1861
Described on roll as "colored."

ancestry.com

Originally Posted by gary

While the first example given is that of a soldier, the second, a musician, was considered a non-combatant and therefore not a soldier.

Note that the first example was mustered-in as a Bugler and was Bugler on all subsequent rolls.
The second example is also a Bugler.

They are both soldiers...unless you are using two sets of rules.

Jackson's discharge paper describes him as a soldier.

Originally Posted by gary

Let's not confuse 19th Century definitions with our present 20/21st Century definitions. Today we recognized medics as soldiers and award them the Combat Infantry Badge. Back in the 19th Century they weren't considered as soldiers.

Found a record of a cook in the USCT. On all rolls he is listed as cook.
In official correspondence involving his discharge he is referred to as a soldier.

Originally Posted by gary

Enlisting into a Confederate unit as a musician, cook, teamster make one subject to military, but didn't mean (in Confederate eyes) that one was a soldier.

Then all serving in the USCT in non-combat roles should be excluded from the "180,000."

[gary]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Note that the first example was mustered-in as a Found a record of a cook in the USCT. On all rolls he is listed as cook.

In official correspondence involving his discharge he is referred to as a soldier.

Then all serving in the USCT in non-combat roles should be excluded from the "180,000."

Apples and oranges. The issue is not whether men in the USCT were soldiers and it's irrelevant the practices of the Union army to the issue at hand. The issue is whether the Confederate slaves who were manservants, musicians, cooks or teamsters were soldiers. By Confederate definition, they weren't.

BTW, Bruce Levine's book is on Confederate Emancipation is on sale cheap at Edward Hamilton bookseller. It should be required reading as well as Chandra Manning's book, What This Cruel War Was Over.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by gary

Apples and oranges. The issue is not whether men in the USCT were soldiers and it's irrelevant the practices of the Union army to the issue at hand. The issue is whether the Confederate slaves who were manservants, musicians, cooks or teamsters were soldiers. By Confederate definition, they weren't.

BTW, Bruce Levine's book is on Confederate Emancipation is on sale cheap at Edward Hamilton bookseller. It should be required reading as well as Chandra Manning's book, What This Cruel War Was Over.

Not quite apples and oranges, but i know what you mean, the CSA refused all negros regiments for CSA service when they were offered, and ordered them disbaned, that did not mean some of these men did not then serve in other regiments that were acepted into service.

While all CSA did not clss them as soldiers, it payed tham at the same rate as a privates, more than did the Union army for its non coms. Also serving the guns at Bull run ment 3 such non coms were killed in the Richmond Howitzers, so being a non com did not mean being out of combat or imune from its effects, CSA cassed Buglers as soldiers and not non coms.

54th Mass came back with negro prisoner captured bearing arms and killing yankees with it.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by gary

The common interpretation of the officer kissing the baby that is seen with the black woman nearby is that she is the mammy who responsible for caring for the child while the officer (father) marches off to war. The officer, of course, is white.

A good explanation.

Equally as good, is that the negro in between the 2 white bearing arms, and not himself depicted with arms, must by a process of elimintaion be the officer of the formation being depicted.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by gary

Apples and oranges. The issue is not whether men in the USCT were soldiers and it's irrelevant the practices of the Union army to the issue at hand. The issue is whether the Confederate slaves who were manservants, musicians, cooks or teamsters were soldiers. By Confederate definition, they weren't.

The men I have listed are Free Blacks...not Slaves.

[matthew mckeon]

Actually, instead of discounting the actual black Union soldiers( the "180,000"), then we should add all the laborers, teamsters, laundresses, cooks, nurses, camp servants in the Union Army to that number. I mean if we're going to make every black face near an army camp into a soldier, it only seems fair.

There's a nice photo in Alexander Gardner's Photographic Sketchbook. It's titled "what do I need, John Henry." A Union officer lolls in a camp chair and a black servant(identified in the caption as such) hands him a jug of rotgut, which apparently fuelled this particular soldier's war effort. I guess John Henry just became a Union soldier. It's 180,000 + 1.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Actually, instead of discounting the actual black Union soldiers( the "180,000"), then we should add all the laborers, teamsters, laundresses, cooks, nurses, camp servants in the Union Army to that number. I mean if we're going to make every black face near an army camp into a soldier, it only seems fair.

There's a nice photo in Alexander Gardner's Photographic Sketchbook. It's titled "what do I need, John Henry." A Union officer lolls in a camp chair and a black servant(identified in the caption as such) hands him a jug of rotgut, which apparently fuelled this particular soldier's war effort. I guess John Henry just became a Union soldier. It's 180,000 + 1.

The purpose of my last several posts was to show there were Black Confederate Soldiers...not just servants attached to the army.

Most were in non-combat roles but there also appear many who were enlisted/mustered-in as private.

Next question is- How many free blacks were in the Confederate army?

1,000?

5,000?

10,000?

[ole]

There is no doubt that there were black confederate musket-toting soldiers. The question has always been how many?

I usually figure that if the black drew pay, he was a soldier. Unfortunately, confedrate records are incomplete, at best.

ole