More Black Confederates...

[johan_steele]

Just as a note to why I so adamantly dispute most of the accounts of the Black CS Soldier. When I was living in SC I visited a plave called Dingles Mill the site of a "ferocius battle where thousands died" according to a local SCV man and there were hundreds of Black Confederates there. I was intrigued and quite impressed by the story I was told and came to firmly believe there were 30,000 or more Black Confederate soldiers... I have since revised my opinion downward dramaticly.

I repeated the story, often... then I met a women by the name of Connie Boone who forced me to question the incident. I did my own research and discovered several things: 1. the battle was so insignificant that it isn't listed in any listing of CW battles. 2. THe Black troops there in most evidence were USCT men not CS. 3. due to a shortage of horses local slaves had been impressed to pull the CS guns and may or may not have manned them. 4. Almost everything I had been told about the incident was pure fabrication from the numbers involved to the tactics used.

Upon further research I discovered that what I was told about this particular incident was NOT an unusual distortion. For that alone I owe Connie a great apology which can never be given.

I have run sources to ground that claim hundreds of Black Confederates in arms to find one or sometimes 2 zeros added to the orignal number. Creative editing done w/ a very sick agenda.

My process for coming to the number of 1300 actual fighting Black CS men is simple. I have run to ground approx 130 verifiable incidents involving Black Soldiers fighting w/ the CS (40 approx w/ Forrest) and that is all. I figured that w/ Jim Crow and creative bookkeeping I was likely missing a goodly number in short I suspect I only found 10%. Most of these Black men served in western Regiments. Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee etc.

I have NEVER read a first person account from the Union perspective of facing Black CS troops in battle, or of capturing them or of burying them. Many of the letters I have read were written by abolishionists and perhaps 75-80% were written by western troops some of who were extremely racist men that would have complained or commented about seeing Black CS soldiers. Having now read Union letters & diaries to the tune of better than 2000 different authors I think I stand on fairly firm ground.

I see the modern habit of finding a single account or a dozen of Black men fighting for the CS and then I see the numbers carried all out of proportion. Why? Some feel the South must be vindicated and will willingly lie, distort & attempt to rewrite history to do so. Others feel that the US can do no good and "proof" that black CSers fought against this country only furthers that belief.

Thankfully there are a few, and I do mean a few, who attempt to use actual research to come to their own conclusion... unfortunately they are a minority.

[Dred]

I find it interesting that your 1300 arrived at by logic is pretty close to my 1900 arrived at mathmaticaly...

Originally Posted by johan_steele

I have NEVER read a first person account from the Union perspective of facing Black CS troops in battle, or of capturing them or of burying them. Many of the letters I have read were written by abolishionists and perhaps 75-80% were written by western troops some of who were extremely racist men that would have complained or commented about seeing Black CS soldiers. Having now read Union letters & diaries to the tune of better than 2000 different authors I think I stand on fairly firm ground.

100% on par with my thoughts. People have a knack for saying exactly what I think but putting it in much better words than I can manage.

[Will Posey]

My take on this issue is that there were some blacks who served in some capacity with the Confederate Army. The services of some of those have been recognized by state pensions. While they may not have been sanctioned from up on high, they did serve, although certainly not in the huge numbers that have been cited, and there certainly were not units of black Confederates. Rather, these men served as individuals, integrated with regular units, with many having come along with their masters (or their master's son) to serve that individual. No doubt, some did take up arms and join in the fighting. Doing so makes one a soldier in fact, even if not in name or on the record.

Think about it. If you, as a young slave, had been sent to war to serve your master's son as he served in the army, would you not take up a weapon to defend your master's son during an attack? Of course, you would. Your motive for fighting would be to fulfill your charge to aid and protect this young man, but not to defend state's rights or the institution of slavery.

So, to me, this debate has polarized some into two camps: those who claim thousands upon thousands of blacks served as soldiers, and those who claim none served. Gentlemen, in my opinion, those extremes are extremist. The real answer lies in between somewhere.

Black participation, whether voluntary or not, whether officially-sanctioned or not, should be acknowledged. However, the gross exaggeration of the numbers who may have served should be stopped. Those big numbers did not happen, or there would be more real evidence, from both Union and Confederate sources.

Will Posey

[unionblue]

Will Posey,

Sir,

The argument is not that there no black slaves who served in combat. As far as I can recollect, NONE on this board has ever disputed this historical, proven fact.

Larry has made the statement that the SCV and others should honor and remember those who fought for the Confederate cause and the South, no matter if they were black or white. Again, no problem there as it is only right and proper to do so. NONE on this board, as far as I can recollect, has ever voiced an opinion NOT to do so.

My only source of contention comes from those who insist that large numbers of black slaves/freedmen served as soldiers (not cooks, not teamsters, not laborers, body servants, etc.) in combat against Union forces. I will not, and have not denied, that there are recorded instances of black slaves taking up arms or being involved in times of combat.

What I do deny is that there was any concentrated effort by the Confederate government or any of the Southern States to put black slaves into combat as soldiers under any condition until late 1864, early 1865. The South simply did not want to see black slaves with weapons in their hands with the potential to turn those arms upon themselves. The papers of the time show this attitude time and time again. The papers and source documents of the time show the determined resistance to the idea of arming slaves over and over again.

There is no evidence to support large numbers nor any coordinated effort until near the end of the war, to try and get black slaves into the fight as soldiers.

This is not a belief on my part nor is it just my unbacked, unsourced opinion. It is supported by the views of the Confederate government and the Southern people from their own accounts and records.

It is my contention, IF large numbers of black slaves served as soldiers, where are the accounts of such? Where are the letters and the diaries the record such? Where are the ORs, the newspaper accounts, the battle reports of such? It is the very LACK of evidence that supports the idea that large numbers of slaves did NOT serve as fighting troops, what is commonly referred to as 'soldiers.'

My request is simple. Produce such documentation that shows slaves in battle with Union forces ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, in significant numbers as to have a real impact upon historical events.

The reason I demand such is because of certain current websites, books, and newspaper articles that constantly give the impression that tens of thousands of slaves served as soldiers in the fight for Secession. While lists can be produced of those who were compensated for service to the Confederacy as cooks, teamsters, and other noncombatant roles, no list of regiments can be provided nor can any after action reviews of battles involving such men can be produced. Even when requested numerous times.

Although we can be directed to various websites that espouse tens of thousands of slaves served as soldiers and we have been asked to accept a false rerendering tintype of USCT troops as black Confederate soldiers, no source documents of any historical merit can be provided for such claims of 'thousands of black soldiers.'

Again, no one here denys individual acts of slaves in rare instances fighting or firing on Union troops. With over three million combatants spread over almost the entire country for four years, anything was bound to happen once in a while.

But too many push this view of large numbers of black Confederates in order to advance a modern-day agenda whose purpose is to distort history and demean and diminish other factual parts of it. The most typical take is something like 'slavery couldn't have been so bad or a real issue of the Civil War if large numbers, in the tens of thousands, fought along side their masters.' So it must have been about that mean old tariff, those evil capitalists or evil old Lincoln wanting to expand the powers of the central government just like Alexander Hamilton wanted him to.

No matter how much evidence and historical documentation is shown to some, it will not matter. Because this is no longer a historical debate with the goal of trying to shed light on an interesting facet of the Civil War. Any evidence put forth that questions this idea, is, at times, considered an attack upon a faith, a personal religion, a CAUSE, that must be defended at any price, even if it means the sacrifice of true historical events and that a contrived fiction must be substituted in order to make things 'right.'

And this is why I will no longer participate on this thread or any other like it. I cannot learn from a person's personal faith nor can I debate it with any kind of logic or fact. You cannot fight a person's belief that is dear to them.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Will Posey

My take on this issue is that there were some blacks who served in some capacity with the Confederate Army. The services of some of those have been recognized by state pensions. While they may not have been sanctioned from up on high, they did serve, although certainly not in the huge numbers that have been cited, and there certainly were not units of black Confederates. Rather, these men served as individuals, integrated with regular units, with many having come along with their masters (or their master's son) to serve that individual. No doubt, some did take up arms and join in the fighting. Doing so makes one a soldier in fact, even if not in name or on the record.

Think about it. If you, as a young slave, had been sent to war to serve your master's son as he served in the army, would you not take up a weapon to defend your master's son during an attack? Of course, you would. Your motive for fighting would be to fulfill your charge to aid and protect this young man, but not to defend state's rights or the institution of slavery.

So, to me, this debate has polarized some into two camps: those who claim thousands upon thousands of blacks served as soldiers, and those who claim none served. Gentlemen, in my opinion, those extremes are extremist. The real answer lies in between somewhere.

Black participation, whether voluntary or not, whether officially-sanctioned or not, should be acknowledged. However, the gross exaggeration of the numbers who may have served should be stopped. Those big numbers did not happen, or there would be more real evidence, from both Union and Confederate sources.

Will Posey

Will, I know there were some black men that fought beside men they thought of as brethern, fellow children of the plantation. Some did follow their masters, masters children, brothers... if slaves were not sold off a plantation they could be a regular community. I have no doubt there were men, black men, who served what they saw as the "right thing to do" in fighting beside their friends and brothers who may have had a lighter shade of skin than they... there were black men who fought for what they saw as right, the CS. Right or wrong they fought for what THEY saw as right. How many? My research and opinion points to about 1300 +/- others have found real numbers that might equal about 10 times that.

I think the gross exaggerations of 250,000 as comical... black men fighting to preserve their place at the bottom of the pyramid, or black men fighting for men they might call friends and brothers... did they exist? Absolutely, were they a majority? No, but their stories are worth telling. At least I hope so.

[larry_cockerham]

Gentlemen, we do great disservice to a race when we too readily jump to the conclusion that a black man couldn't have participated in a war because he was defending his own honor, his home and his family. It's also possible he had a healthy dislike for yankee soldiers. The fellow on the next farm may well have been enough of a friend to offer a little help in the ruckus. That's the scenario I'd like to think happened a few hundred times. Not the norm, but a step above.

[ole]

Gentlemen, we do great disservice to a race when we too readily jump to the conclusion that a black man couldn't have participated in a war because he was defending his own honor, his home and his family.

No quarrel at all with that statement, Larry. Contention emerges when the number of volunteers is inflated to put a prettier face on the pig. I have no objection to adjusting interpretations to fit facts. I do object when facts are adjusted to fit interpretations.

Ole

[matthew mckeon]

In the latest issue of North and South this issue is discussed. Robert Krick's unpublished essay is mentioned, in which he studied 100,000 service records and found 20-30 non-white soldiers. If the CS armies totalled (very roughly) one million, this means up to 300 non whites.

[Dred]

Ever since this question was posed to me, I've been searching high and low. Not just for that number, but for an explanation as to how they came up with it. You fellas have already convinced me that it must be way too hi, but I had to know how they cam e up with it. The evidence they use is sound on teh surface, but i think if you dig a little deeper you'll find the major flaw. Ad that is that these men they used as examples were not part of the army... which is the real debate.

Taken from this website http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/count...%20the%20South


Where does this estimate of 65,000 come from ?

Dr. Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, observed that Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's troops in occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
If we assume Dr. Steiner is somewhat reliable and assume that this 3,000 Negroes of Jackson's troops are a representative number of black Confederates in a typical Confederate fighting force, then we may be able to make a rough calculation. First we must determine how many men were part of Jackson's troops ? If Lee had 50,000, was Jackson's force, 25,000 ? That would be a likely estimate. So then what percentage is 3,000 of 25,000 ? Answer: 12 %. So that would tell us that 12% of Jackson's force was black Confederates. Now, if we assume that Steiner meant 3,000 blacks soldiers in Lee's entire 50,000 force that crossed the Potomac, then the percentage of black Confederates is reduced to 6%. Either way it is calculated, black Confederates were a considerable percentage of the total Confederate fighting force.
To extend this reasoning across the entire Confederate Army, what does this represent ? That depends on the total number of men that served in the CS Army, which is also in itself debatable as muster rolls are notoriously incomplete.

For example, let's use for example the 1,000,000 listed names in Broadfoot's Confederate roster compiled by the National Archives. Yes, there is some repeat names, but let's use that figure as an example. What percentage is 12% ? This would translate to 120,000 black Confederates and half that, 60,000. As such, the 65,000 estimate is not an unreasonable estimate. Debatable ? Yes. Refutable ? Absolutely not. Black Confederates imaginary ? Ridiculous

Could Dr. Steiner have been wrong regarding the numbers ? Yes, absolutely. In fact, many Army officers routinely made mistakes at estimating the enemies numerical strengths. However, the smaller the body of troops one is estimating, the more likely that number is correct. While Steiner failed to accurately estimate Lee's total forces (I recall he estimated 80,000 instead of 50,000), in my opinion, it is unlikely he erred as significantly with a handful of 3,000 black troops. So even if Steiner made an overestimate of 30%, we still are in the range of 40,000 to 80,000.

[ole]

Thanks for the post, Dred. I note two things immediately in the figures and the photo in the link. First the photo. What do you see? A black man in a uniform of sorts. I see no weapons. I do see two tin cups. Was it normal for a soldier to carry two? The man in uniform is significant; that he carries no weapons and two cups is equally significant.

Second. Extending the number of blacks in Jackson's troops over the entire Confederate army is making a few assumptions too many. Would the percentage of blacks in a division be the same in the AoT as it was in the ANV? How accurate is the 3,000 estimate? Did anyone else estimate 3,000? (Also, it seems a bit sloppy to estimate Jackson's numbers instead of looking up a closer number.)

Was it Jackson's Division (1600) or Jackson's Command (11,493)? If the latter, and if 3,000, fully one quarter of Jackson's command was black. You'd think someone else might have noticed.

Just a few unanswered questions.

Ole