The Black Confederate

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

...just what "claims" are you referring to?

Note highlighted & enlarged text... I think it rather clear. Then reread your last several posts on this thread. Your claims & assertions are quite clear. If you aren't certain what point you are arguing... maybe you should rethink your strategem.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by trice

Johan,

The commander of the 1st Louisiana Native Guard was a white man in 1861-62, a Henry D. Ogden.

The Confederate 1st LA Native Guard did participate in a couple of grand reviews in New Orleans during their brief existence. One was apparently in early February 1862, just before they were disbanded by law, when the governor marched 26,000 militia, mainly unarmed, through the city. Hollandsworth ("The Louisiana Native Guards", LSU Press) says there were 33 officers and 731 men present; 3 officers and 139 men absent.

Regards,
Tim

Tim, many of their officers were black and several would serve in the 1st LA Native Guard US. The 1st LA Native Guards were never mustered or accepted into CS service as far as I can tell. In fact Battalion (in the note dated September 29, 1861) provided us proof that they were most certainly not welcome in CS service.

Notes I have read on the unit suggests they were well drilled and quite well disciplined; more so than many of the other LA militia Regiments. Yet they were spurned and were refused service in the CS. That around 25% switched allegience a scant year later is not suprising.

Unless I'm in error Batalion seem to be impling that the 1st LA Native Guard gave better service to the CS than to the US and that any implication to the otherwise is pure northern propoganda. Not even the State of Louisiana or the CS govt claimed the 1st LA Native Guard on their rolls as a unit.

THis thread has been sucsfully hijacked into debating such a small grain of fact in the service of the 1st LA Native Guard that I question whether Battalion has any other ammo... or if he has shot his bolt.

I'd like very much to learn more detail about the 40 odd black men that served w/ a TN Cav unit at Chickamauga, those that served w/ Forrest and of the Black CS Cannoneers (I refuse to believe they were chained to their guns) at Mobile during the siege there. Those were men who gave real service to the CS; who participated in campaigns and battle. Those are the verifiable Black CS soldiers who proved themselves more than loyal manservants who picked up arms during the heat of a moment.

What I have found are Black CS soldiers in ones and twos, teamsters & cooks who may or may not have carried arms and a few other isolated examples of real fighting men serving the CS who just happened to have dark skin.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Note highlighted & enlarged text... I think it rather clear. Then reread your last several posts on this thread. Your claims & assertions are quite clear...

Please state what "claims" you are referring to.....

[trice]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Tim, many of their officers were black and several would serve in the 1st LA Native Guard US. The 1st LA Native Guards were never mustered or accepted into CS service as far as I can tell. In fact Battalion (in the note dated September 29, 1861) provided us proof that they were most certainly not welcome in CS service.

They had only one white officer: the colonel.

They were never mustered into Confederate service. They existed only in the state militia, and were dissolved February 15, 1862 by act of the state legislature. The governor brought them back March 24 (or later, they weren't actually called out then)

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Notes I have read on the unit suggests they were well drilled and quite well disciplined; more so than many of the other LA militia Regiments. Yet they were spurned and were refused service in the CS. That around 25% switched allegience a scant year later is not suprising.
Unless I'm in error Batalion seem to be impling that the 1st LA Native Guard gave better service to the CS than to the US and that any implication to the otherwise is pure northern propoganda. Not even the State of Louisiana or the CS govt claimed the 1st LA Native Guard on their rolls as a unit.

Technically, this is the same unit. Butler got around his restrictions in August of 1862 with a legal chicanery, simply recalling the 1st LA Native Guards of the militia to service as a state militia unit.

Since they did, essentially, nothing for the Confederacy I would find that argument hard to swallow. The assault at Port Hudson where Capt Cailloux (the self-proclaimed "blackest man in New Orleans") died leading the charge with a large number of others beats that for me. He was in both the Union and Confederate versions, along with many men in his company.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

THis thread has been sucsfully hijacked into debating such a small grain of fact in the service of the 1st LA Native Guard that I question whether Battalion has any other ammo... or if he has shot his bolt.

I agree.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

I'd like very much to learn more detail about the 40 odd black men that served w/ a TN Cav unit at Chickamauga, those that served w/ Forrest and of the Black CS Cannoneers (I refuse to believe they were chained to their guns) at Mobile during the siege there. Those were men who gave real service to the CS; who participated in campaigns and battle. Those are the verifiable Black CS soldiers who proved themselves more than loyal manservants who picked up arms during the heat of a moment.

I can help you with one of those.

Forrest was a millionaire in 1860. When he formed his regiment (not when he enlisted as a private, but after the governor asked him to create a regiment), Forrest took a number of slaves from his holdings with him to be teamsters and such. He told them that he would free them if the Confederacy won the war, and that they would be free anyway if the Yankees won the war.

Some 60 men came away with him. They were kept under the control of one of their number, who reported to Forrest. In late 1863, apparently concerned that he might die with his promise unfullfilled, he had emancipation papers for those remaining alive drawn up by an officer recuperating from wounds. IIRR, this was 56 or 58 men. The story I saw said they remained with him until the end of the war. Never officially enrolled as soldiers, but obviously travelling with the commands and working for them.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

What I have found are Black CS soldiers in ones and twos, teamsters & cooks who may or may not have carried arms and a few other isolated examples of real fighting men serving the CS who just happened to have dark skin.

Yes. That is all that I have come across, except for the 100 or so on the retreat to Appomattox after the Confederacy changed their law. One small action guarding a wagon train, and seen digging some fortifications near Farmville in April 1865 just before the surrender.

Regards,
Tim

[Battalion]

Sidewinder reply to trice-

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Tim, many of their officers were black and several would serve in the 1st LA Native Guard US. The 1st LA Native Guards were never mustered or accepted into CS service as far as I can tell. In fact Battalion (in the note dated September 29, 1861) provided us proof that they were most certainly not welcome in CS service.

I never made any claim that the Native Guard had been mustered into the Confederate States Army...only that they had served under a Confederate general within their own state.

Originally Posted by joha

Unless I'm in error Batalion seem to be impling that the 1st LA Native Guard gave better service to the CS than to the US and that any implication to the otherwise is pure northern propoganda.

When did I imply this?

This would be comparing apples and oranges...

...since only 125 (10-15%) of the Native Guard Militia joined what would eventually be known as the 73rd USCT....and some 50 to 100 joined various other units in the Federal army...

...there's little to compare.

Originally Posted by joha

Not even the State of Louisiana...claimed the 1st LA Native Guard on their rolls as a unit.

Huh?

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by trice

I can help you with one of those.

Forrest was a millionaire in 1860. When he formed his regiment (not when he enlisted as a private, but after the governor asked him to create a regiment), Forrest took a number of slaves from his holdings with him to be teamsters and such. He told them that he would free them if the Confederacy won the war, and that they would be free anyway if the Yankees won the war.

Some 60 men came away with him. They were kept under the control of one of their number, who reported to Forrest. In late 1863, apparently concerned that he might die with his promise unfullfilled, he had emancipation papers for those remaining alive drawn up by an officer recuperating from wounds. IIRR, this was 56 or 58 men. The story I saw said they remained with him until the end of the war. Never officially enrolled as soldiers, but obviously travelling with the commands and working for them.

Forrest was truly an increadible man. There was much to admire in him and a good bit to question. But he was the epitome of a 19th Century American man; starting from the bottom and grabbing opportunity as it presented itself. Forrest armed them as he did his white men. THere was a story (one w/ questionable authenticity) that Wheeler made a rude comment about his company of black men in his ranks and Forrest replied quite simply: "They fight as well as any other." While it might not be a legit quote... it certainly sounds like Forrest.

I have heard the charge that half or more of the men of the 1st LA Native Guard were quadroons or "almost as white as real men" (I am quoting an individual) my thought was what does skin color matter... a black man, Mexican, Indian etc can pull a trigger as well as any white man. The USCT proved this beyond even what the worst racist dirtbag could deny... not that that stops them.

I have never understood the attempts of the Lost Cause to discredit the actions of the USCT; they proved themselves as men and fighting men of the highest order at that.

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Shane,
In the 1860s, for blacks to be brave and effective soldiers would be heresy for secessionists, and the great hope for African Americans and abolitionists. A key test of citizenship in many cultures, then and now, is the willingness to fight for your country, to have the fortitude to face danger, and finally to be formidable enough to defend your freedom.

As Frederick Douglass famously said: if the black men gets the uniform of his country, a weapon and ammunition then no one can call him less than a man and a citizen.

For those Southerners who needed an inferior caste to work the plantations, and an ideology of racism to justify the inferior caste, armed black men were a fatal contradiction. For Northerners who held similar racist beliefs, there was an effort to discriminate against, insult and playdown black contributions to the war effort.

Because the CSA wasn't a totalitarian government, but a functioning republic, with citizens with a heritage of self rule(for whites), you can find dissent from that view, and a debate that lasted throughout the war.

As far as modern apologists for the CSA goes, if the CSA was created to preserve slavery, if they sought to break up the nation, in order to save the right to human property, then the CSA is indefensible, because slavery is now indefensible, and the racism that justified it is indefensible, at least openly. The CSA was on the wrong side of history.

However, if the CSA had black defenders, then it couldn't have been as racist as holding millions in bondage would suggest, thus every black soldier for the Confederacy is precious evidence of its virtue. Slavery was benign. Slave and master were bound by ties of deep affection(from the master) and deep loyalty(from the slave.) Thus the urge to "honor" any blacks who might have fought for the CSA. Its actually honoring the Confederacy, not the men.
This leads to a great deal of wasted effort to rustle up some black Confederates. We start with 80,000(look at the beginning of this and similar threads) now we're reduced to wrangling over a single state militia unit that was firmly rejected by the CS government.

The USCT is another awkward fact. If the primary military effort of black Americans was to fight, die and kill to destroy the CSA, then slavery looks less benign, and the ties between master and slave are more of iron, than love.

The most successful way to make CSA look better, seems to me, is to attack the USA of the 1860s. Its full of vicious racists, and a host of other flaws and problems. Having said this, its clear to me, that the USA was on the right side of history in this conflict. That's not an excuse for the many scoundrels, thieves, liars and crooks on the Northern side, but with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see Union victory was for the best.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Sidewinder reply to trice-



I never made any claim that the Native Guard had been mustered into the Confederate States Army...only that they had served under a Confederate general within their own state.



When did I imply this?

This would be comparing apples and oranges...

...since only 125 (10-15%) of the Native Guard Militia joined what would eventually be known as the 73rd USCT....and some 50 to 100 joined various other units in the Federal army...

...there's little to compare.

of coarse... they never gave service to the CS so they cannot be compared to the men of their Regiment who would form the first cadre of men for what would become the Corps De Afrique and later part of the USCT. As they never gave service to the CS I'm not certain how they can be viewed as Black Confederate Soldiers...

Huh? I do apologize profuseley I didn't realize you were so easily confused. Apparently it is more easily done than I realized; again my most profuse apologies..

It would appear from Battalions figures that approx 25% of the men who were members of the 1st LA Native Guard CS (which was never mustered, armed or recognized by the CS) later joined the Union Army and then gave good service to the US. Men who served vs those who didn't is truly a case of comparing apples to oranges.

What I would like to see on this thread is data about Black Confederates who actually served on the sharp end.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

Dear Shane,
In the 1860s, for blacks to be brave and effective soldiers would be heresy for secessionists, and the great hope for African Americans and abolitionists. A key test of citizenship in many cultures, then and now, is the willingness to fight for your country, to have the fortitude to face danger, and finally to be formidable enough to defend your freedom.

As Frederick Douglass famously said: if the black men gets the uniform of his country, a weapon and ammunition then no one can call him less than a man and a citizen.

For those Southerners who needed an inferior caste to work the plantations, and an ideology of racism to justify the inferior caste, armed black men were a fatal contradiction. For Northerners who held similar racist beliefs, there was an effort to discriminate against, insult and playdown black contributions to the war effort.

Because the CSA wasn't a totalitarian government, but a functioning republic, with citizens with a heritage of self rule(for whites), you can find dissent from that view, and a debate that lasted throughout the war.

As far as modern apologists for the CSA goes, if the CSA was created to preserve slavery, if they sought to break up the nation, in order to save the right to human property, then the CSA is indefensible, because slavery is now indefensible, and the racism that justified it is indefensible, at least openly. The CSA was on the wrong side of history.

However, if the CSA had black defenders, then it couldn't have been as racist as holding millions in bondage would suggest, thus every black soldier for the Confederacy is precious evidence of its virtue. Slavery was benign. Slave and master were bound by ties of deep affection(from the master) and deep loyalty(from the slave.) Thus the urge to "honor" any blacks who might have fought for the CSA. Its actually honoring the Confederacy, not the men.
This leads to a great deal of wasted effort to rustle up some black Confederates. We start with 80,000(look at the beginning of this and similar threads) now we're reduced to wrangling over a single state militia unit that was firmly rejected by the CS government.

The USCT is another awkward fact. If the primary military effort of black Americans was to fight, die and kill to destroy the CSA, then slavery looks less benign, and the ties between master and slave are more of iron, than love.

The most successful way to make CSA look better, seems to me, is to attack the USA of the 1860s. Its full of vicious racists, and a host of other flaws and problems. Having said this, its clear to me, that the USA was on the right side of history in this conflict. That's not an excuse for the many scoundrels, thieves, liars and crooks on the Northern side, but with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see Union victory was for the best.

Well said... I think you have hit the nail square on the head and said it far better than I.

[unionblue]

Matthew,

Excellent post, thank you for you insight.

Battalion,

Since you have not seen fit to list the lies and other distortions I asked about, I thought I might give you this to think about.

The people you need to argue with and challenge the most for what they have said and written are not modern-day historians of a 'Northern' bent, slant, or point of view.

The people you need to argue with are dead.

I went back through this thread for a single lie or untruth that anyone has presented here. Again, no one has denied the historical fact that there were a few blacks, slaves and freedmen, who fought for the South. But time and time again, this has been proven to be an exception, not a general rule. Even the evidence and documentation you have produced has more often than not, supported this conclusion.

The simple fact of the matter is, you must condem those men from the South of the 1860's. You must call into question their statements and editorials, orders and resolutions, as this is all that has been presented here, their words and documents alone.

You must dispute the given facts and documentation that the South, as a whole, simply did not want slaves or freed blacks to shoulder weapons and be considered soldiers. The evidence is overwhelming that even the white soldiers in the ranks of the Confederate army did not want blacks serving along side them, as it the majority of its responses when the question was called. Even the Confederate government could not bring itself to arm blacks, nor free them for such service, and then only on the Confederacy's deathbed.

No one on this thread manufactured sources nor consulted exclusively with 'Northern' historians, but in most cases simply presented Southern sources on the question from the time.

Call the men of those times liars, discount their statements and editorials, even their very actions, but I think you are going to have a hard time doing so.

Matthew sums up the entire exercise pretty well and I am going to let it rest there.

For now.

Unionblue