The Black Confederate

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Wild Rose; could you define "significant numbers" or hazzard a guess?

By significant I mean that it was common enough to be mentioned historically time and again by various sources. No, I'd rather not guess because that's all it would be...a guess.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

My own opinion is that fewer black men fought (bearing arms) for the CS than women who disguised their sex to serve.

Does that mean you don't believe the report of Dr. Lewis Steiner claiming to have seen more than 3,000 black Confederates during General Jackson's occupation of Fredrick, Maryland?
"Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

Or Fredrick Douglas' account of "Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels."

How do you account for these and the many other claims of black Confederates?

Originally Posted by johan_steele

A minimal contribution... though their efforts in building fortifications and in various rear echelon roles were herculean. It is fascinating how the men who actually built the fortifications at Vicksburg, Mobile, Petersburg Atlanta etc were almost all slaves... yet the credit for those fortifications go to the engineers who oversaw their construction... do you know if the CS Congress ever gave a thanks to those men?

I don't know as the CS Congress ever thanked it's white soldiers either. It was a fairly short lived government.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Do you believe that a man who was aware of the fugitive slave laws where a black man could and often was returned to or placed in slavery on the word of a white man w/ no chance of a trial would willingly serve a "Nation" that guaranteed that would remain so in perpetuity?

I've said before, but I'll say it again, if I believed that all Southern slaves lived a wretched, miserable existance, I'd find it hard to believe, but since I know that wasn't usually the case, yes, I do believe many blacks fought for the South as history indicates.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

I firmly believe that those black men serving in Virgina and elsewhere were by and large conscripted; likely at gunpoint if the CS conscription effectiveness w/ their white victims is any kind of indication.

I know the CSA didn't have any sympathy for shirkers, but I don't believe black men were forced into the CSA army at gun point and then handed a gun that could be pointed back at any given time.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

I might suggest Slavery & the Making of America by Horton or Remembering SlaveryI don't recall the author off hand. Both should be easily available through your local library. And both should pretty well dissuade the idea that many slaves felt any real loyalty to those who held them in bondage.

At the very least both of these books reinforced in me the knowledge that American slavery was one of the most despicable institutions in our history and they reinforced that it was a national sin instead of merely a southern one.

Thank you. I look forward to reading both of them. I'm reading more of the Slave Narratives now. It will be interesting to see how the books compare to the slave's accounts.

Originally Posted by johan_steele

If the premise that black CS soldiers contributed significantly to the CS cause were true (I dispute this) the Jim Crow laws and treatment of Black people after the War in the South is an even sadder chapter...

I agree, it was a very sad chapter with the South practicing de jure segregation and the North practicing de facto segregation, the blacks didn't stand a chance in the United States for many generations to come.

Regards,
Rose

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by union

....it was the inability to give up the institution, to finally face the fact the South was going to lose the war if it could not call up the manpower that the slaves could have given them, even in the face of this ultimate disaster, the majority of the South, to include it's leadership, could not bring themselves to take this step, offer freedom to the slave in exchange for his service in the army. It simply was not possible in their hearts and minds to take such a drastic step

You seemed to have missed something...

"to include it's leadership"

Who were the primary advocates of giving freedom to blacks who served in the army?-

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States
Judah P. Benjamin, Secretary of State
Robert E. Lee, General-In-Chief, Confederate Armies


Who is usually quoted as a "major" opponent of enlisting blacks in the army?-

Howell Cobb, in charge of organizing the Georgia Reserves

Originally Posted by union

Again, while I concede there were incidents of blacks, both free and slave, serving with, and in some cases, fighting with, Confederate forces, this does not in any was diminish the fact that no one in the South wanted to abolish slavery or give freedom to the black who served in the army.

"no one".....????????

General Forrest gave freedom to over 40 slaves for their service in the Confederate Army. There are probably many other such cases.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Originally Posted by johan_steele
"Wild Rose; could you define "significant numbers" or hazzard a guess?"

By significant I mean that it was common enough to be mentioned historically time and again by various sources. No, I'd rather not guess because that's all it would be...a guess.

Here is my estimate extrapolated from some real numbers-

Non-Enlisted.......40,000-50,000 (Cooks/Servants*, Musicians, Teamsters, Laborers)
Enlisted.............10,000-20,000 (Cooks, Musicians, Soldiers/Sailors**)

Total.................50,000-70,000

*15,000-20,000
**2,500-5,000

In some instances servants and teamsters were enlisted.

*******


Who could be involved in combat?- Any of the above.

How many?- Unknown.

Most likely to have been involved in combat-
1. Soldiers/Sailors (of course)
2. "Servants"
3. "Cooks"

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Here is my estimate extrapolated from some real numbers-

Non-Enlisted.......40,000-50,000 (Cooks/Servants*, Musicians, Teamsters, Laborers)
Enlisted.............10,000-20,000 (Cooks, Musicians, Soldiers/Sailors**)

Total.................50,000-70,000

*15,000-20,000
**2,500-5,000

In some instances servants and teamsters were enlisted.

I thank you for your educated guess/estimate etc. I would tend to agree w/ your soldier's/sailors #'s though my own research still puts that as quite high; as to the Non-enlisted numbers I would place the number at at least twice that and also add to it the slaves and free blacks who worked in arsenals, mills, railroad rebuilders and worked shipyard as well as those who built entrenchements. We won't go into those who grew the crops that were tithed to the the CS govt as that is a whole nother can of worms.

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Does that mean you don't believe the report of Dr. Lewis Steiner claiming to have seen more than 3,000 black Confederates during General Jackson's occupation of Fredrick, Maryland?

How do you account for these and the many other claims of black Confederates?

The Doctor who said he saw 3000 approx black CS men carrying arms... it doesn't bear up to other sources, including CS. 3000 black men would have been a considerable portion of the command and they are mentioned nowhere else. Nor were they ever captured, surrendered, killed in battle etc... Were they teamsters? Most probably and in considerably smaller numbers.

IIRC Fredrick Douglas was quoting a second hand source... I have to admit to suprise at seeing his quotes used as I know many who defend the CS discount any & everything he said. While I have a tendency to read his accounts of slavery as a mixed bag I know I give it more credence than many. It intrigues me that many are quick to credit his account of Black CS troops but as quickly disregard his accounts of the brutality of slavery.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I don't know as the CS Congress ever thanked it's white soldiers either. It was a fairly short lived government.

Actually the CS Congress thanked CS Oficers frequently, praised the gallant deeds of their men etc. But nary a word in thanks to their loyal slaves before during or after. If their were tens of thousands of Black CS soldiers... the CS congress seemed unaware of it.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I've said before, but I'll say it again, if I believed that all Southern slaves lived a wretched, miserable existance, I'd find it hard to believe, but since I know that wasn't usually the case, yes, I do believe many blacks fought for the South as history indicates.

I can imagine few worse existances than to know my life was not my own but owned by another... To know my wife & child could be sold away from me on a whim. To know that my marriage was not recognized, to know that I was not thought of as a human being, to know I was never to be taught to read. I've never said that all slaves lived a horrid wretched existance... runaway slaves were not uncommon either. I cannot say that I have ever heard any black man or woman say... "Put me back in bondage, life was so much better there."

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I know the CSA didn't have any sympathy for shirkers, but I don't believe black men were forced into the CSA army at gun point and then handed a gun that could be pointed back at any given time.

Most accounts I have found of legit Black CS Soldiers find them manning guns... or doing the duties of battery horses. Swinging a gun into the face of your captors is a wee bit more easily prevented than turning a musket on them. At Mobile Bay the Black men I read of in CS service were loosley chained to their gun... The reference comes from an internet source quoting a letter home from a Union soldier who marvelled at the depths of depravity of CS officers. I've never found a verifiable first hand account of a Union soldier mentioning Black CS troops in combat. That is a major stumbling stone for me. THe attitudes of most whites of the time is another.

[unionblue]

Battalion,

If you are under the impression that Jefferson Davis, Judah P. Benjamin, and General Lee comprised the entire leadership role of the South and were only responsible for themselves, then you would have a point. If these men were absolute dictators responsible only to their whims and could do anything, I would agree. But I remember a phrase here from one of those leaders. "Died of a theory."

They did not have total control of the leadership of the South anymore than Lincoln did in the North. General Cleburne did not represent the entire leadership of the Army of Tenneessee when he proposed freeing any slave and his family if they served in the Confederate army.

The figures you give above is a sideways attempt to prove that 70,000 slaves served as 'soldiers,' fighting men trained to fight in the ranks with weapons, when it is in fact a picture of the many support roles slaves filled in order to put more white men in the fighting ranks. It is a misrepresentation and it does no justice to the actual events and reasons behind the black confederate soldier story. If anything, it harms the credability of the real black confederate soldiers who did fight in the ranks, because distortion casts doubt upon the entire concept.

This is why organizations such as the SCV spend most of their times not discussing history, the historical actions of their ancestors or the reasons they fought. Instead, they spend most of their time trying to overcome a bais that they are willing to perpetuate myths because it seems they are trying to recover from the greatest myth that the war had nothing to do with slavery. Instead of reporting from the entire picture of the war, the social, political and even military views of it, people outside the organization, tend to view they are being misled and therefore put no trust or faith in what the SCV is trying to do.

While I am certain that individual camps approach the preservation of the heritage of their Confederate history in different ways and different degrees, overall, the organization is viewed with suspision.

You consistantly wish to show a narrow part of the picture while ignoring the whole. History should not be a 'pick & choose' sort of proposition, no matter how uncomfortable it is.

Again, Buffalo-Guard, Larry, yourself and others have stated there were free blacks and slaves who fought in the ranks with white confederate soldiers. I do not deny that fact, a proven (in my mind) historical fact.

But to attempt to inflate the actual numbers of those black men who fought in the ranks to the high levels that are unsupported by history, is viewed by me as an excuse, a diversion, an attempt to bury another historical fact. That slavery had something to do with this conflict.

Until we grasp that this insitution was a very real cause of the Civil War, we do not advance in our understanding of the people of the time, north and south. We do not learn from this history of those events and therefore cannot apply them to our present. We do not move forward. We remain stuck in that tragic time, mired in denial and disbelief. We do no service to ourselves and our children.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Battalion,

If you are under the impression that Jefferson Davis, Judah P. Benjamin, and General Lee comprised the entire leadership role of the South and were only responsible for themselves, then you would have a point. If these men were absolute dictators responsible only to their whims and could do anything, I would agree. But I remember a phrase here from one of those leaders. "Died of a theory."

This was a comment by Jefferson Davis about Howell Cobb's theory.

Originally Posted by union

The figures you give above is a sideways attempt to prove that 70,000 slaves served as 'soldiers,' fighting men trained to fight in the ranks with weapons, when it is in fact a picture of the many support roles slaves filled in order to put more white men in the fighting ranks. It is a misrepresentation and it does no justice to the actual events and reasons behind the black confederate soldier story.

What on earth are you talking about?

How do you come to this conclusion about what I posted?

***

The phrase "any of the above" (my previous post) does not mean the entire 70,000...

....but that whoever was involved in combat (whether it's 1,000 or 10,000)...

....could have been from any of the varied groups-

servants, cooks, etc.

Does that clarify it?

[unionblue]

Battalion,

No, the quote by Jefferson Davis was not about Cobb's theory, but his observation that the division and wrangling between the States of the Confederacy not being able to work with one another because of State's Rights and petty arguments meant the Confederacy would die because of the theory of States Rights.

This quote also is a good indication of Jefferson Davis's inability to act independently to save the Confederacy, by implementing the slave soldier bill in time, and forever having to butt heads with the Southern leadership of the States, Congress, slaveowners, newspapers, advocates to maintain slavery and NOT free any slaves even if they served in the army.

As for you being puzzled by my post, I apologize. It was my contention that there has been an argument in the 'Lost Cause' community of today that claim there were up to 90,000 black confederate soldiers who fought in the ranks along side white soldiers during the course of the Civil War. It is my contention that such claims are rediculous and not supported by documented evidence.

I was under the impression that you gave your figures in your most recent above posts that you were suggesting that even though slaves filled the positions of cooks, teamsters, laborers and bodyservants, that they too, shouldered muskets and fought in the ranks as 'soldiers.' This simply was not the case, at least not in the numbers or frequency that some have claimed.

If I have misunderstood, I apologize, but my statement stands that when those who claim this higher number, it gives the impression to the general public that the organizations dedicated to Confederate Heritage are doing their utmost to downplay the institution of slavery as a major factor in the bringing on of the Civil War. It gives the impression 'they' yearn for the 'good old days' when everyone knew their place and their station and hope someday for its return.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

To All,

An interesting and well posted set of articles on the issue of black confederate soldiers can be found at the 37th Texas web site:

The Black and The Gray
http://www.37thtexas.org/html/Wshcitypaper.html

I assure one and all, this is NOT a prounion site!

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Wild_Rose,

I see that in one of your posts above, if memory serves, you mention Frederick Douglass as a sort of evidence concerning black confederate soldiers.

From the book, Confederate Emancipation, by Bruce Levine.

In a January 1865 speech in New York, Douglass had warned the North that slaves might fight for the Confederacy if Jefferson Davis made them a good enough offer. Southern blacks, Douglass had predicted, would fight for whichever side "will nearest approach the standard of justice and magnanimity toward the negro." But of course, Douglass knew quite well which side that would be. He was using the specter of black Confederate soldiers to gain additional leverage with the Republicans, to frighten the Union into further strengthening its own commitment to black rights. As Douglass later made clear, he actually regarded Davis's plan (The Negro Soldier Bill) as evidence of a kind of "madness" precisely because it "called upon the Negro for help to fight against the freedom which he so longed to find, for the bondage he would escape--against Lincoln the emancipator for Davis the enslaver." Confederate leaders could convince themselves slaves might accept such an absurd offer, Douglass noted, only because "the South was desperate," and "desperation discards logic."

Sincerely,
Unionblue