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.
Also, in all this debate about whether blacks who dug fortifications or drove wagons for the Confederacy were soldiers, it is worth noting that civilian blacks who dug fortifications or drove wagons for the Union were not considered soldiers, nor were civilian whites who did the same tasks. Only those who joined the USCT were. Why does there seem to be an insistence that those who did for the Confederacy deserve different treatment?
Sorry to take so long to get back to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
"blacks who dug fortifications or drove wagons
There is little evidence (if any) that black laborers/teamsters/servants serving in the Federal army took part in combat."
Nor did I say they did. Please read what I did say above. What I was pointing out is that hired freedmen and conscripted slaves in the Confederate service as labor should be accorded the same status as those serving in that capacity for the Union: civilians.
Tens of thousands of USCT (as well as a number of the 10000 or so black sailors) took part in combat. Check their record from Milliken's Bend through the end of the war. At Nashville, they even managed to get a Confederate officer to praise their gallant charge in his official report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
Those that served such roles in Confederate forces were in many instances involved in combat...as you have noted....
Actually, as noted, the "many instances" you say I remember comes out to 2 or 3 tiny group incidents and a few cases of individual instances in four long years of war involving millions of men under arms. You can pretty much count the cases of verifiable "black Confederates" fighting in combat on your fingers, as far as I can say.
It was, however, possible for a black to become a musician or a cook in the Confederate Army under the law. Specific acts were passed allowing that after the initial acts establishing the army. In 1864, the Conscription act was modified to allow up to 20,000 laborers to be hired from owners and/or conscripted to build fortifications (dig trenches, etc.)
Battalion][/b]My point was that there was no law made by the Confederate Congress that specifically stated that blacks could not be soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobile_96
??? Is this an suposed to prove that Blacks did serve, as soldiers, in the Confederate Army, on a regular basis?
There was a specific law passed in March, 1865 that allowed Blacks to become soldiers in the Confederate Army, as in men carrying guns and organized into units to fight the enemy, wearing uniforms, with ranks, etc. Orders went out to raise forces, but time had run out. The only actual troops anyone can point to are two small companies seen marching through Richmond. They accompanied the retreat to Appomattox as a guard for a supply train, and deployed into formation once when Union cavalry came near.
There had been suggestions to form such forces starting in 1861. Even in the desperate winter of 1864-65, there was bitter debate about this in the Confederate Congress and it took the intervention of Robert E. Lee to convince the die-hards to allow it.
Previous to that, I can find specific acts allowing officers to take blacks as cooks or musicians. At no point was it allowed for them to be taken as armed soldiers until March of 1865. A few -- very, very few -- examples can be found of individual blacks participating in combat. I know of *one* case in the retreat from Gettysburg where a Confederate officer armed the black teamsters of his train of wounded as Union cavalry approached.
I have been watching people discuss this for over ten years online. The above is all I can realistically say happened in four long years of war.
On the northern side, there were about 179,000 USCT in uniform and about another 10,000 sailors in the USN.
However, the Native Guard was refused enrollment in the Confederate Army, and were ordered disbanded. So how did they 'fight' for the Confederacy, and When?, would be better answered.
Chuck in IL.
My reply was to this statement by unionblue-
"There were many local and state laws that would not permit this." (blacks to carry weapons)
It was not in relation to anything concerning acceptance by the Confederacy....
...though the Native Guard did serve under a Confederate general and in conjunction with Confederate units.
All of which proves only that you can never say "never."
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
Originally Posted by trice "It was illegal for blacks to be soldiers in the Confederacy, whether they were slave or free"
My reply: "Please show us where this law is at."
As far as I know...there is no such law...
From 1861 on, in all their various acts on the subjects of volunteers, militia, and regulars, the Confederate Congress always specified that only "free white males" were eligible for military service.
The exceptions to this were two specific acts authorizing blacks to be 1) cooks and 2) musicians. This remained the situation until March of 1865. Changing this required strenuous efforts and the combined efforts of davis and Lee after Lincoln had won re-election, Sherman was marching through Georgia, and desertions were reaching all-time highs.
The Confederate Congress did not authorize the conscription of blacks for labor (and then only 20,000) until February 1864. Even then, they had not been called up and organized in November 1864.
The average person in the Confederacy knew this. For example:
November 23, 1863.
Hon. WILLIAM P. MILES:
DEAR SIR: In the discharge of the duties of my office the past two years, embracing a wide and extended jurisdiction over the slaves and free persons of color within this district, my attention has been repeatedly called to an anomalous state of things that exists among us throughout the whole Confederacy. I ask leave to bring it to your notice, that if you should deem the matter worthy of consideration, you may submit it before the committee of which you are the chairman. It is this--that whilst our entire white male population between the ages of eighteen and forty-five are in the service of the Confederacy, and those of other ages occasionally are liable to military duty, and whilst our slaves are busily engaged in the pursuits of agriculture and in working upon the fortifications, there is yet a class among us which enjoys singular privileges and immunities and is, with limited exceptions, not held liable to public duty, to wit, the free colored population. Not only does this class pursue its usual avocations but with a greatly enlarged sphere for the employment of its industry in consequence of the withdrawal from many occupations of the white men of our country. The free man of color thus enjoys the increased profits of his business and makes money, whilst the white man does the hard work of the day at the risk of health and life, with a very poor moneyed compensation and away from home and family. The more I reflect upon this subject the more glaring does its inequality and injustice appear to me. And I have thought that it would prove an eminently wise and wholesome policy to place the free persons of color, say between the ages of sixteen and fifty, to do the menial and much of the mechanical service of the Army for the war, and at a moderate rate of wages. They might be employed as teamsters, hostlers, musicians, hospital stewards, attendants and nurses, caterers and cooks, shoemakers and cobblers, and generally as assistant artificers. As matters now are, large numbers of men are detailed from the ranks to fill these offices, the duties appertaining to which might be as well and faithfully discharged by the class alluded to, thus gaining to the ranks many thousands of able-bodied soldiers. The ties of home, of family, and of property will prove a sufficient guaranty for the usefulness and fidelity of this class if thus employed.
Having bestowed much time and thought upon the subject, I submit with much deference the views above expressed.
I am, dear sir, very respectfully, yours,
FRANCIS S. PARKER,
Provost-Marshal of Georgetown District, South Carolina.
From 1861 on, in all their various acts on the subjects of volunteers, militia, and regulars, the Confederate Congress always specified that only "free white males" were eligible for military service.[subject to conscription]
You still have not shown a law passed by the Confederate Congress that specifically forbids blacks serving as soldiers.
~~~
"The Confederate Congress did not authorize the conscription of blacks for labor (and then only 20,000) until February 1864"
This was another call for black laborers/teamsters,etc, in early 1865.
Two congressmen tried to insert amendments into the bill that specifically stated that the black laborers would not be used as soldiers.
The amendments failed.
BTW, I was at the National Archives in the last week of April. I didn't take note but did note that there were several free blacks and slaves who had service cards and were mustered in as musicians or cooks. As we know, these are non-combatant posts yet it brought them under military law and they were subject to court-martial like any other private.
I'll toss my support to Trice on the "free white male" bit. States may accept blacks and the Louisiana Native Guards escorted some prisoners once (and only once), but not the Corn-fed-eracy until late in 1865. Any fighting done by blacks was at the instruction and direction of their owners, not the Confederate Government.
This was another call for black laborers/teamsters,etc, in early 1865.
Two congressmen tried to insert amendments into the bill that specifically stated that the black laborers would not be used as soldiers.
The amendments failed.
S.129......Approved 28 February 1865
AN ACT to provide for the employment of free negroes and slaves to work upon fortifications and perform other labor connected with the defenses of the country.
Whereas, the efficiency of the Army is at times greatly diminished by the withdrawal from the ranks of soldiers to perform labor and duties which can as well be done by free negroes and slaves:
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That all free male negroes between the ages of eighteen and fifty years shall be held liable to perform any labor or discharge any duties with the Army, or in connection with the military defenses of the country, such as working upon fortifications, producing and preparing materials of war, builiding and repairing roads and bridges, and doing other work usually done by engineer troops and pontoniers, acting as cooks, teamsters, stewards and waiters in military hospitals, or other like labor, or similar duties which may be required or prescribed by the Secretary of War, or the general commanding the Trans-Mississippi Department, from time too time, and said free negroes, whilst thus engaged, shall receive rations and clothing, under such regulations as the Secretary of War may prescribe, and shall receive pay at the rate of eighteen dollars per month.
SEC. 2. That the Secretary of War and the general commanding the Trans-Mississippi Department are each authorized to employ, for duties like those named in the first section of this act, as many male negro slaves, between the ages of eighteen and forty years, as the wants of the service may require, and the said slaves, whilst so employed, shall be furnished rations and clothing, as provided in the preceding section, and the owners paid such hire for their services as may be agreed upon, and in the event of the loss of any slaves whilst so employed, by the act of the enemy, or by escape to the enemy, or by wounds or death inflicted by the enemy, or by disease contracted whilst in any service required of said slaves, and by reason of said service, then the owners thereof, respectively, shall be entitiled to receive the full value of such slaves, to be ascertained and fixed by agreement at the time said slaves are so hired, under rules to be prescribed by the Secretary of War....
perform any labor
or
discharge any duties with the Army,
or
in connection with the military defenses of the country, such as working upon fortifications, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amendments proposed by Leach and Ramsay-
Mr. J. M. Leach submitted the following amendment:
Add the following proviso to the end of the third section: "Provided further, That in no event shall any portion of said slaves or free negroes so impressed have arms placed in their hands, or be mustered into the Confederate States service, or be used at any time as soldiers in said service."
Mr. J. M. Leach called the question.
Mr. Marshall demanded the yeas and nays thereon;
Which were ordered,
And recorded as follows, viz:
Yeas ... 21
Nays ... 48
Yeas: Atkins, Chambers, Chrisman, Clopton, Cruikshank, Echols, Fuller, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Herbert, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, J. T. Leach, Logan, Miles, Ramsay, J. M. Smith, W. E. Smith, Turner, and Wickham.
Nays: Akin, Baldwin, Barksdale, Batson, Baylor, Bell, Blandford, Branch, Horatio W. Bruce, Burnett, Carroll, Chilton, Clark, Cluskey, Colyar, Conrow, Darden, Dickinson, Dupré, Elliott, Ewing, Farrow, Gaither, Goode, Gray, Hatcher, Hilton, Holder, Johnston, Keeble, Lester, Lyon, Machen, Marshall, McMullin, Menees, Miller, Moore, Orr, Perkins, Read, Russell, Sexton, Simpson, Triplett, Villeré, Wilkes, and Witherspoon
....
So the question was not ordered.
Mr. Chilton moved to lay the amendment on the table.
....
The question recurring on the motion to lay the amendment on the table,
Mr. J. M. Leach demanded the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered,
And recorded as follows, viz:
Yeas ... 50
Nays ... 23
Nays: Anderson, Chambers, Cruikshank, Darden, Echols, Fuller, Gilmer, Goode, Herbert, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, J. T. Leach, Logan, McMullin, Miles, Orr, Ramsay, J. M. Smith, W. E. Smith, Smith of North Carolina, Turner, Wickham, and Mr. Speaker.
So the motion prevailed.
....
On motion of Mr. Blandford,
The House adjourned until 11 o'clock to-morrow.
[Leach's amendment is tabled (dead)]
~~~
The House being in secret session,
Proceeded to the Consideration of the amendment of Mr. Ramsay to the bill (S. 129) "to provide for the employment of free negroes and slaves to work upon fortifications and perform other labor connected with the defenses of the country."
The amendment having been read as follows, viz:
In section 3, after the amendment of Mr. Goode (which had been inserted after the word "necessary," in line 10), insert the following: "Provided, That said slaves shall not be armed or used as soldiers,"
....
Mr. Atkins moved to lay the amendment of Mr. Ramsay on the table.
Mr. McMullin demanded the yeas and nays thereon;
Which were ordered,
And recorded as follows, viz:
Yeas ... 45
Nays ... 26
Nays: Chrisman, Colyar, Cruikshank, Darden, Farrow, Fuller, Gholson, Gilmer, Goode, Herbert, Holder, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, J. T. Leach, Logan, McMullin, Miles, Perkins, Ramsay, Russell, J. M. Smith, W. E. Smith, Staples, Turner, Wickham, and Mr. Speaker.
If there is no law prohibiting black soldiers, why was it necessary for the CSA legislature to create a law permitting it.
Quote:
1. If it is already "against the law"...to use blacks as soldiers...then why is it necessary for Leach and Ramsay to propose these mendments?
Could it be that the act they wanted to amend would have permitted coloreds to carry weapons?
Quote:
2. Why do the amendments fail?
Desperation.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
