Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Ann, you have to remember that we are Americans. We will fight over who makes better coffee. It's been a while since the knives came out; we aren't, after all, that stupid. Well. Maybe. Really close. But this is what it comes down to. Coffee.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
BTW, the Confederate Congress in early 1861 passed a law stating the Army would use the existing US Army regulations, giving the regulations the force of law.
Tim
The Confederate army did use existing US army regulations...but I find no Act by the Confederate Congress making it Law.
If you have this law please post it.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Those are conscription laws. They require whites to serve but there is nothing in them that specifically excludes blacks.
Actually, there is. The laws -- each and every one passed -- specifies who will be conscripted: white males. Blacks are excluded.
You also jnow -- because you have seen it posted before -- a letter from a Confederate provost-marshal asking that policy be changed to make the free colored population subject to service.
You love to strain at gnats and swallow camels whole. No one denies that there were a few Blacks serving as soldiers. They were just rare, and not officially allowed by the Confederate government except as cooks and musicians. But you know all that and have known it for a long time. At this point, you are just spending a lot of effort trying to deceive yourself and confuse the issue.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Ann, you have to remember that we are Americans. We will fight over who makes better coffee. It's been a while since the knives came out; we aren't, after all, that stupid. Well. Maybe. Really close. But this is what it comes down to. Coffee.
ole
Only because some of us haven't figured out how to use knives in cyberspace.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
And the fight continue about the slavery even in this forum.
Ann
Ann,
And the fact of the matter is, the American Civil War can still be LOST, even now, a 143 years since the last shot in anger was fired.
It can and will be, if we fail to learn from its mistakes or if we take the history of that time and twist into something other than what really happend and why it that war was really fought.
As it has been said before, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Actually, there is. The laws -- each and every one passed -- specifies who will be conscripted: white males. Blacks are excluded.
Volunteers are not conscripts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You also jnow -- because you have seen it posted before -- a letter from a Confederate provost-marshal asking that policy be changed to make the free colored population subject to service.
Yes, conscription.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Seems to me we are breaking down on semantics. What is a "soldier."
Now in common usage from today, anyone who dons a uniform, be he cook, musician, truck driver, whatever, is a "soldier." He (or she) wears the uniform, he is paid by the Army, he is a soldier.
However, for those who are trying to show that blacks supported the Confederacy by saying - "See, black soldiers!" there is certainly a difference. A bugler, a cook, a teamster - someone without a gun - these are "soldiers" but they do not support the underlying (and generally unstated) proposition that the black man was willing to "fight for the South." Was he there willingly or unwillingly? Did his master bring him along, stick a bugle or a ladle in his hand and say "March! And if you desert you will be whipped?" Did his pay go to him or to his master?
In order to support the underlying proposition that large numbers of blacks supported the Confederacy through military service, I would need more evidence as to who they were, whether they enlisted or were enlisted, etc.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
The Confederate army did use existing US army regulations...but I find no Act by the Confederate Congress making it Law.
If you have this law please post it.
Battalion, you are only fooling yourself.
As for regulations and laws, take a look around for this:
=====
AN ACT for the establishment and organization of the Army of the Confederate States of America.
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That from and after the passage of this act the military establishment of the Confederate States shall be composed of one corps of engineers, one corps of artillery, six regiments of infantry, one regiment of cavalry, and of the staff departments already established by law.
...
SEC. 29. The Rules and Articles of War established by the laws of the United States of America for the government of the Army are hereby declared to be of force, except that wherever the words" United States" occur the words "Confederate States" shall be substituted therefor; and except that the Articles of War Nos. 61 and 62 are hereby abrogated and the following articles substituted therefor:
ART. 61. Officers having brevets or commissions of a prior date to those of the corps in which they serve will take place on courts-martial or of inquiry, and on boards detailed for military purposes, when composed of different corps, according to the ranks given them in their brevet or former commissions; but in the regiment, corps, or company to which such officers belong they shall do duty and take rank, both in courts and on boards as aforesaid which shall be composed of their own corps, according to the commissions by which they are there mustered.
ART. 62. If upon marches, guards, or in quarters different corps shall happen to join or do duty together, the officer highest in rank, according to the commission by which he is mustered in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or militia, there on duty by orders from competent authority, shall command the whole and give orders for what is needful for the service, unless otherwise directed by the President of the Confederate States in orders of special assignment providing for the case.
...
Approved March 6, 1861
=====
Please note that this is a LAW passed by the Confederate Congress and signed by President Davis.
Please note also that the "Rules and Articles of War established by the laws of the United States of America for the government of the Army" they are referring to were also authorized by LAWS passed by the United States Congress. That is how these things are routinely done.
If you think that the Articles of War do not have the full force of Law, why don't you try joining the military and violating them. I'd also suggest something where the punishment is small, because if you pick a biggie they will imprison you, and if you pick a real biggie, it is even possible they will execute you. They can do that because they have the force of law, not because they are just a "regulation".
Now try being serious. Look hard at the weaknesses in all the evasions and nit-picks you keep posting, and realize that you are simply hiding from facts you don't like.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Seems to me we are breaking down on semantics. What is a "soldier."
Now in common usage from today, anyone who dons a uniform, be he cook, musician, truck driver, whatever, is a "soldier." He (or she) wears the uniform, he is paid by the Army, he is a soldier.
However, for those who are trying to show that blacks supported the Confederacy by saying - "See, black soldiers!" there is certainly a difference. A bugler, a cook, a teamster - someone without a gun - these are "soldiers" but they do not support the underlying (and generally unstated) proposition that the black man was willing to "fight for the South." Was he there willingly or unwillingly? Did his master bring him along, stick a bugle or a ladle in his hand and say "March! And if you desert you will be whipped?" Did his pay go to him or to his master?
In order to support the underlying proposition that large numbers of blacks supported the Confederacy through military service, I would need more evidence as to who they were, whether they enlisted or were enlisted, etc.
Not that easy. Soldiers who are detailed as cooks or musicians or teamsters are soldiers. Civilians hired to be cooks or musicians or teamsters remain civilians.
The only thing I have ever seen before March 1865 where the Confederacy officially allowed Black people (or colored or Negroes, or whatever term people wish)to be considered soldiers was as musicians and cooks. In those cases, they passed specific legislation that authorizes the enlistment of blacks for that purpose. (Enlisted musicians were traditionally assigned to be stretcher bearers and hospital assistants when battle came.)
In every conscription act for soldiers I have seen before that March 1865 date, the law refers specifically to white males as those who will be enrolled and conscripted. This includes the one that conscripts all of the Volunteers serving in early 1862.
There was also an act passed 2/14/1864 which allowed free Negroes and slaves to be conscripted for labor with the Army, but that clearly treats them as a separate class and does not bring them into the War Department as soldiers but as civilian workers (free Negroes at $11/month, slaves according to the standard published hirerates of the day to their masters). It took until late November for Davis to authorize their conscription, and it was December before the War department started the ball rolling.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
However, for those who are trying to show that blacks supported the Confederacy by saying - "See, black soldiers!" there is certainly a difference. A bugler, a cook, a teamster - someone without a gun - these are "soldiers" but they do not support the underlying (and generally unstated) proposition that the black man was willing to "fight for the South." Was he there willingly or unwillingly? Did his master bring him along, stick a bugle or a ladle in his hand and say "March! And if you desert you will be whipped?" Did his pay go to him or to his master?
In order to support the underlying proposition that large numbers of blacks supported the Confederacy through military service, I would need more evidence as to who they were, whether they enlisted or were enlisted, etc.
Timewalker, you bring about the question that is the crux of the matter; were these men there willingly? Did they march off to war in patriotic fervor for the country which held their brethren in bondage? I am sure, as we have all acceded, that there were most likely a small (and I mean small) number of black troops that slipped through the system. But the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were white.
Bruce Levine, in Confederate Emanicipation makes it patently clear that there is almost no possibility that there were any great numbers of black Confederate soldiers. Even in 1865, when they were debating the bill whether to enlist blacks in the ranks, it met stiff opposition and barely passed! So why would anyone assume that if there were as many as a couple brigades of black troops in Confederate ranks if there was this much opposition to the idea of black troops? This is a society that still had the Denmark Vessey and the Nat Turner rebellions fresh in their minds, and many were afraid that if you gave a gun to a black man, he would turn it on his officer and shoot him. Why fight for a country in which your family is still held in chains while you fight to keep them there? I know I wouldn't do such a thing. And the United States was offering a much better deal to begin with, by saying that we won't just free some of you, but all of you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
But the reports say they were captured at the Battle of Antietam (Sept. 17)-
"...negroes were captured on the battle-field at Antietam and delivered as prisoners of war at Aiken’s Landing to the Confederate authorities, and receipted for and counted in exchange..."
Ludlow (Federal) to Ould (Confederate), 14 June 1863. (Ludlow and Ould were agents for the exchange of prisoners.)
War of the Rebellion...Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 2, Volume 6, page 17
Thank you for showing me where you found your information Battalion; I spent some time last night and didn't have much luck, but other pressing matters called. A number of African Americans were indeed seem to have been taken and delivered as prisoners of war. However, I shall have to find if they were taken in arms or as teamsters, or hospital attendants.
A chaplain in the United States military holds a rank. He is rendered the courtesies that any other officer in the service is garnered. Upon retirement, he can draw a pension. Yet from the chaplains I have known and spoken with, they don't consider themselves necessarily "soldiers." They are not trained to, nor are they supposed to, pick up a weapon in combat. They are non-combatants. They may see combat, but they will not participate in combat. The same goes for doctors I believe.
If this bugler, Mr. Jackson, helped to load the guns at a battle, or if he ever picked up a firearm (on a regular basis) and fired upon Union forces, then he would be a soldier, having actively participated in combat. The muster roles seem to list him as a bugler. The pension roles list him as soldier. I will have to do research on Reconstruction laws and policy, but I would hazard a hypothesis that maybe he was given that pension and title because of an act passed during the years following the war. Just a guess, something I will have to research some more. But if a man isn't specifically trained for combat, he isn't a soldier. Partisan rangers and guerillas weren't technically soldiers, nor were they always treated as such when captured. I can't say much more. I am beating this dead horse even more.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
