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.
...As has been mentioned by several already, there were blacks in the Confederate Army. However, it is not clear as to how many of them were actually combat troops. The reason for this is, there isn't a clear record of it anywhere. There is evidence that the Confederate Congress tried to pass bills to bring slaves into military service for reasons other than labor (digging trenches, building fortifications, teamsters, etc.) and that this didn't occur until late in the war, when the cause was all but lost.
Prior to March of 1865, the only military positions a black man could hold, legally, within the Confederate Army were cook and musician. The Confederate Congress passed this exception in 1861, IIRR.
In March 1865 (with defeat and disaster staring them in the face), the Confederate Congress passed a law allowing blacks to serve as soldiers. Even then, 1/3rd of the members of Congress voted against the law, and it took the open support of a desperate Robert E. Lee to convince them. There is absolutely NO evidence that Confederate law was ever any different than this, and plenty of evidence that this is exactly how the Confederate government acted.
Attempts were made to recruit them under the new law (Lee sent out authorization to recruiting officers), but only two companies are known to have actually formed; these were seen in Richmond and on the retreat to Appomattox. In other cases, it is known that the orders to begin recruiting arrived in an area after the news of Lee's surrender, and nothing was done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Man0507
... The 1st Louisiana Native Guard was an all black Confederate unit from the New Orleans area, made up of free blacks, mind you, not slaves; however, there isn't much evidence to say that they actually fought in Confederate service and they were disbanded when New Orleans was captured, to be replaced with a Union unit of the same name. ...
Actually, they were a LA militia unit never accepted into Confederate service. They were officially disbanded by Louisiana legislature in early 1862 when they passed the new "white males only" militia act. The state governor called them back on his own (probably technically a violation of the new law) in the emergency as Farragut descended on the city of New Orleans that Spring, and some 300 of them appear to have gathered (of the 1000 or so who seem to have been on the roster in late 1861). The Confederate commander did not withdraw them with other forces when New Orleans was declared an open city, indicating he did not consider them part of his army, and they disbanded when the city surrendered to the Yankees without a fight.
That Summer, Ben Butler used some legal maneuvers to create the 1st and 2nd Louisiana Native Guard regiments -- black troops who were not really Federal, since he was technically using the black troops of the Louisiana militia. A good number of the men in those units (and some other, later US Colored Troops regiments from LA) were in that "black Confederate" Louisiana militia unit.
Regards,
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.
Been here several times. Done that several times. Some would inflate the number of black troops to show that blacks were really, truly accepted in Southern white ranks and society. Others would deflate the number to demonstrate that they weren't.
In the end, if we were to determine an actual number of volunteer, black confederate soldiers, where would we be? Does it make secession and armed rebellion any less odious or more noble?
Just a question.
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
Attempts were made to recruit them under the new law (Lee sent out authorization to recruiting officers), but only two companies are known to have actually formed; these were seen in Richmond and on the retreat to Appomattox. In other cases, it is known that the orders to begin recruiting arrived in an area after the news of Lee's surrender, and nothing was done.
This is something that has not been thoroughly investigated. I don't believe it would be accurate to say "nothing was done."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
-Native Guards-
Actually, they were a LA militia unit never accepted into Confederate service. They were officially disbanded by Louisiana legislature in early 1862 when they passed the new "white males only" militia act.
The "white males only" was also in the 1861 LA militia law...
...in fact that was the militia law of every state...South and North.
To claim the "whites only" was placed in the 1862 LA militia law to exclude the Native Guards is silly. They volunteered and were accepted in 1861 under the same law.
Whites were required to serve. Blacks could volunteer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
...as Farragut descended on the city of New Orleans that Spring, and some 300 of them appear to have gathered (of the 1000 or so who seem to have been on the roster in late 1861).
This was something I asked you the source for before...and you had no answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The Confederate commander did not withdraw them with other forces when New Orleans was declared an open city, indicating he did not consider them part of his army, and they disbanded when the city surrendered to the Yankees without a fight.
On the contrary...General Lovell (CSA) was not pleased that the State forces had been disbanded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
That Summer, Ben Butler used some legal maneuvers to create the 1st and 2nd Louisiana Native Guard regiments -- black troops who were not really Federal, since he was technically using the black troops of the Louisiana militia. A good number of the men in those units (and some other, later US Colored Troops regiments from LA) were in that "black Confederate" Louisiana militia unit.
Regards,
Tim
Bunk.
Some 100 of the former Confederate Native Guards joined the Federal army in 1863.
About 150-200 joined other Federal units in the remaining years of the war.
Two of these units did post duty at New Orleans serving 28 days (7th LA) and 40 days (6th LA) and were mustered out.
Not exactly "switching sides."
__________________ 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."
New York Times, 27 September 1861
Last edited by Battalion : 07-03-2007 at 01:05 PM.
I apologize for not being as clear as I could have been in my last post. I hadn't finished my coffee and the caffeine hadn't hit yet. Forgive me?
What I was trying to get at was that throughout the war, there were scattered examples of blacks who would fight for the South. You are entirely correct in saying that the only positions that blacks could legally have within the armies of the Confederacy were those of cook, musician, teamster, laborer, etc. In the early years of the war, there were two regiments of militia raised in the New Orleans area, made up of free blacks. And yes, they were not accepted into service because many white southerners were afraid of armed blacks. That is why some early accounts of blacks in Confederate service (such as Confederate blacks at Antietam) are highly disputed as to whether they are true or not.
As to the acts of the Confederate Congress, I do know that the one that passed was highly contested and there were many who did not agree with the arming of blacks. Because of the controversy of the bill, it didn't pass until March 13, 1865, less than a month before Lee surrendered at Appomatox. Many saw the arming of blacks as a concession of defeat, and others considered it as allowing a Trojan Horse into the South. The passage of the bill to allow blacks to serve as combat troops in the CS Army was a last desperate measure, not accepted by all, but still accepted by Lee and others in high positions. And yes, only about two companies were raised before the war ended.
I will reiterate what I was trying to say. The combat role of blacks in the Confederate Army is still highly debated and much more research must be done to determine that role. Unfortunately, the documentary evidence is scant and hard to find. Much of it was quite possibly destroyed. However, there is some light being shed on this topic and it is one that will probably have more light shed on it in the future. I cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that blacks served in the CS Army as soldiers. I think it is quite possible that a small number (a very small number) might have. What I have said is my opinion, based on what reading I have been able to do on the topic.
__________________ "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
The "65,000" number is from Dred. Please address your question to him.
He's already answered. So you, yourself, have no basis of any kind for using such a number of "black Confederates"? From all the posts you've made over the year or so I've been paying attention, I'd guess you might have what you consider support for, oh, a few hundred "black Confederates" yourself? Is that about right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
My number (170,000) is from the OR.
169,624 to be exact...that enlisted during the rebellion.
If you look at the sentence you are quoting from, you will see that the report does not cover all US troops:
===== The following statement shows the numbers recruited under his direction: Militia (three and nine months) from April 15, 1861, to May 1, 1863 195,921
Volunteers from May 3, 1861, to May 1, 1863 1,149,719
Veteran volunteers re-enlisted in the field, 1863-'64 (*)138,251 Colored troops during the war 169,624 Total 1,653,515 making about two-thirds of the whole number furnished during the war.
=====
The blue italics were added by me, once again, to highlight what you are not paying attention to. No black US soldier who served in the 54th or 55th Massachusetts regiments, for example, would be included in this number -- yet I think we can count those men as Union "soldiers". While the movie "Glory" is a bit overdone in some ways, the men of the 54th really did die just like the white "soldiers" who followed them into the assault in the climactic scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Why would you want to count those that enlisted after the Civil War?
Are you wanting to inflate the numbers?
The number of blacks in US service peaked in early July of 1865 and declined from that point on. The last battle of the Civil War was May 12-13 at Palmito Ranch in Texas. Just how many men do you think we are talking about here, and why don't you wish to count them as soldiers, exactly?
You can also check a little further in the Official Records and find the report of Secretary of War Stanton, dated 11/22/1865 and which does cover everything, and find that he says this: "The whole number of colored men enlisted into the service of the United States during the rebellion was 178,975."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The USCT were military units. The men in them were soldiers, enlisted in the Army and paid as such. They were part of the chain of command of the Union Army. We can find the histories of the units, the names of their commanders, the record of where they were stationed and what they did, the reports of their officers in the Official Records. While they most commonly served as small garrisons and in rear areas, we also have a clear and undeniable record of their service in several major battles of the war, in units as large as division size (such as the battle of The Crater). We even have, by the end of the war, Confederates commenting on the bravery of their charge at the Battle of Nashville. All of this can be documented, and has been many, many times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
This is true...
...but...
...they were paid less than white soldiers...
...so were they regarded as equals?...or as some sort of auxilliary?
First of all, for a time that was true. It was completely wrong and unfair, IMHO. I am pretty sure you already know that the US government CHANGED the laws as the war went on and that by July 1864 USCT were paid the SAME as white troops.
If you didn't know it, you do now and can retract this, acknowledging the change. If you do already know it, why are you trying to present this as something different?
Second, where does this "regarded as equals" stuff come in? No one has said anything about that except you. They were officially regarded as "soldiers" and treated as such by their superiors and government (although not treated well in many cases). Blacks in the Confederate Army were NOT officially regarded as "soldiers" except for the few we have identified. Are you unclear on the distinction? Do you wish to claim something else?
As to "auxiliaries" -- those are "soldiers", too. Blacks in Confederate service were not regarded as "auxiliaries" in military terms. They were regarded as impressed "property" for the most part, legally in much the same status as a horse or an ox. You do recognize that this was completely different than their status in the US Army, don't you?
BTW, if you think that Union prison paperwork calling a few men "soldiers" establishes your point, do you also feel that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had the force of law in the Confederates' eyes, and so they acknowledged their slaves were now free?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The only duty of some USCT was to dig ditches (the entire war). They were called "engineer troops"...but were they any different from the "laborers" that did the same for the Confederates?
As previously proven to you, the Confederates did not think those blacks were "troops" at all. They were slaves conscripted from their masters, i.e., "property" under Confederate law. Not soldiers at all.
According to the after-war studies, the USCT took 16.11 combat deaths in action and from wounds/1000 men. Given the generally shorter term they were in the war, that is well worth noting -- and not much less than the Maryland troops (17.04) for the war. Good fortune or timing allowed them to miss the early bloodbaths of 1861 and 1862 and 1863, or the number would probably be higher.
Some USCT were indeed used as laborers. So were some whites. The Union was certainly not composed of saints and not perfect in their actions. However, what has that to do with the subject of "black Confederates"? What I note here is your attempts to avoid talking about the attitudes and actions of the Confederacy by talking about what the Union supposedly did and NEVER stopping to look critically at your own claim about the Confederacy. This is a common tactic used by those who know their own case is weak.
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.
If you look at the sentence you are quoting from, you will see that the report does not cover all US troops:
===== The following statement shows the numbers recruited under his direction: Militia (three and nine months) from April 15, 1861, to May 1, 1863 195,921 Volunteers from May 3, 1861, to May 1, 1863 1,149,719 Veteran volunteers re-enlisted in the field, 1863-'64 (*)138,251 Colored troops during the war 169,624 Total 1,653,515 making about two-thirds of the whole number furnished during the war.
=====
The blue italics were added by me, once again, to highlight what you are not paying attention to.
The number of blacks in US service peaked in early July of 1865 and declined from that point on. The last battle of the Civil War was May 12-13 at Palmito Ranch in Texas. Just how many men do you think we are talking about here, and why don't you wish to count them as soldiers, exactly?
You can also check a little further in the Official Records and find the report of Secretary of War Stanton, dated 11/22/1865 and which does cover everything, and find that he says this: "The whole number of colored men enlisted into the service of the United States during the rebellion was 178,975."
Please re-read document-
"The recruitment of white volunteers was under the exclusive control of the Adjutant-General from the first call for troops until May 1, 1863, when it was placed under the Provost-Marshal-General, who, being by law charged with the enrollment and draft, was charged also with enlistment, that the entire recruiting service for white vol- unteers might be under one head....
[This is the reason for the missing 1,000,000 (white) troops. They were recruited exclusively by the PM General after 1 May 1863]
...the recruitment of all colored volunteers was under the direction of the Adjutant-General.
"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."
As per your post 34, that the existence of black confederates is "highly debated" and "controversial."
Not really. It's highly debated, to be sure, but its not controversial.
The noise about the legion of black men fighting for the Confederacy is a modern day political construct aimed at burnishing(I call it "blackwashing") the reputation of the Confederacy. It's a massive distraction if you actually are interested in learning about the Civil War.
It's not controversial because no historian or scholar of the CW with a modicum of integrity and some knowledge of the history accepts that there were thousands of black men fighting for the CSA.
Instead we have sematic games around the status of black men North or South, omissions, faked photographs and all the other elements of a con job.
White officers who led black troops like T.W. Higginson wrote about their experiences. Black soldiers themselves, like Corp. J. H. Goodling wrote about their experience. Recent miiltary scholars like Joseph Gaatlhar have written about the white officers and black soldiers in books like "Forged in Battle." Indeed, books about black troops in the Union army have been produced for half a century, since Dudley Cornish's "Sable Arm." The lively and significant debate within the Confederacy over raising a large force of black soldiers is recounted in works like "Confederate Emancipation."
While there are still elements to be explored, there really isn't a lot of controversy. Claims of 50 or 60 or 70 or 80 thousand blacks "supporting" the CSA have as much validity as Ptolemy's ideas of the solar system.
This is something that has not been thoroughly investigated. I don't believe it would be accurate to say "nothing was done."
Go ahead and believe whatever you want. Let us know when you have some sort of evidence to go on. Make sure you tell us the complete story when you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"white males only" was also the 1861 LA militia law...
...in fact this was the militia law of every state...South and North.
To claim the "whites only" was placed in the 1862 LA militia law to exclude the Native Guards is silly. They volunteered and were accepted in 1861 under the same law.
Whites were required to serve. Blacks could volunteer.
Let's be serious. Before the 1862 act was passed, the blacks had volunteered and organized as a regiment. Immediately after it was passed, their regiment was disbanded by the state government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
This was something I asked you the source for before...and you had no answer.
No, that is not accurate. I told you I had read it in a book long ago and did not have a copy of the book nor remember the title, IIRR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The Confederate commander did not withdraw them with other forces when New Orleans was declared an open city, indicating he did not consider them part of his army, and they disbanded when the city surrendered to the Yankees without a fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
On the contrary...General Lovell (CSA) was not pleased that the State forces had been disbanded.
Nope, my statement is absolutely true, and your post merely another example of you trying to attack something never said by me.
The black troops we are talking about here were in the city of New Orleans. General Lovell withdrew his forces from the city when it was declared an open city -- and he didn't withdraw these people. This indicates he did not consider them part of his command, just as he did not withdraw other militia units in the city composed of whites that were not part of his command.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
That Summer, Ben Butler used some legal maneuvers to create the 1st and 2nd Louisiana Native Guard regiments -- black troops who were not really Federal, since he was technically using the black troops of the Louisiana militia. A good number of the men in those units (and some other, later US Colored Troops regiments from LA) were in that "black Confederate" Louisiana militia unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
Bunk.
Nope, once again merely the truth.
On November 23, 1861 there was a "grand review" of troops in New Orleans; about 26,000 men supposedly marched past in a much-ballyhooed affair. The Native Guards showed up with 33 black officers and 731 black enlisted men. A further 3 officers and 139 men on the rolls but absent that day. That gives you a total strength of 36 officers and 870 men (possibly not including the white Lt. Col. in command) as of that date, maximum. There was another "grand review" on January 7, 1862 with the Native Guard in attendance, but I don't have a number available for that event.
Subsequent to this, the legislature passed a new law and the Native Guards regiment was disbanded February 15, 1862. On March 24, the Governor called them up again in the emergency caused by Farragut entering the Mississippi River. The only number I have ever seen for the group that assembled in New Orleans in response was "about 300 men". New Orleans fell and the unit dissolved -- just like the other militia units in New Orleans at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
Some 100 of the former Confederate Native Guards joined the Federal army in 1863.
About 150-200 joined other Federal units in the remaining years of the war.
Now at least 10 officers and 107 men from that "black Confederate" Louisiana Militia unit seem to have served in the Union 1st Louisiana Native Guard Regiment that Butler formed in 1862. A large chunk of this seems to have followed Andre Cailloux, a shining young black officer who died leading a charge at Port Hudson for the Union, but who was also in the original unit.
Others, as I said, joined other units, including the 2nd and 3rd Native Guards formed by Butler. As time went on, the Native Guards were reorganized into the Corps d'Afrique (June 1863)and then into the 73rd and 74th US Corored Troops regiments in 1864.
But let's look at your "Bunk" claim. You yourself say that 250-300 of the original "black Confederate" unit served the Union. I merely said "A good number" did. Even using YOUR numbers, 250-300 of the total 906 officers and men present-and-absent for the November 1861 parade switched sides. Looks like a "good number" to me. If we saw a "white Confederate" unit where over 30% of the men were known to have later served in the Union Army, what would you say about that? Where do you get off with this "bunk" nonsense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
Two of these units did post duty at New Orleans serving 28 days (7th LA) and 40 days (6th LA) and were mustered out.
Not exactly "switching sides."
First of all, both of those Union regiments were called up as 60 day units during an emergency and each was on active duty longer than the original "black Confederate" unit was.
Second of all, the 7th you are talking about was mustered in July 10 and mustered out August 6th. That's the 60-day version.
The 7th was also mustered in on December 1, 1863 up near Memphis, TN, remained on duty in the District of Vicksburg until March 1864, and then was reorganized into the 64th USCT on March 11. The 64th USCT had this record:
SERVICE.--Post and garrison duty at Vicksburg, Miss., till May, 1864. Actions at Ashwood Landing, La., May 1 and 4. Post and garrison duty at Davis' Bend and Natchez, Miss., till February, 1865. Action at Davis' Bend June 2, 1864. Point Pleasant June 25. Davis' Bend June 29. (Pine Bluff, Ark., July 2, 1864. Helena, Ark., August 2, 1864, as a Detachment.) Duty at Vicksburg, Miss., till April, 1865. At Davis' Bend and in the Dept. of Mississippi till March, 1866. Mustered out March 13, 1866.
Are you sure which 7th you are talking about? And if you were, what does it matter since either one provided more service to the Union than the original "black Confederates" one did to the Confederacy?
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.
Please re-read document-
...the recruitment of all colored volunteers was under the direction of the Adjutant-General.
...Colored troops during the war 169,624"
Adjutant-General's Office, 20 October 1866
I read it. It still is incomplete and inaccurate as to the total number of men who served. As I already pointed out to you, it is known this this number would include neither the 54th nor the 55th Massachusetts regiments, both of which were composed of black troops in Federal service, but organized by the state and never turned into USCT. Those 2 regiments between them had 467 men die during the war, 166 of them killed or motally wounded in action.
Your 169,624 number probably includes some of the other early black units, such as the 1st Kansas Infantry, Colored and the 1st South Carolina Infantry, African Descent, and the first three regiments of Butler's Louisiana Native Guard which began forming without the authority of the US government but did later become USCT units. It may have or may not have included all of their men, but I would guess that it did.
That is one of the reasons why the number given by Secretary of War Stanton, who is the Adjutant-General's boss, is higher: it includes other troops not raised through the Adjutant-General's office. As I told you in the last post: check a little further in the Official Records and find the report of Secretary of War Stanton, dated 11/22/1865, and find that he says this: "The whole number of colored men enlisted into the service of the United States during the rebellion was 178,975."
Now if you wish to claim the War Department messed up its records and that therefore the single report you cite is correct and every other one wrong, fine, go ahead. But well over 100 years of readers have looked at all these documents and concluded you are wrong and I am right. The Army's official history of mobilization, written just after WWII, comes down for the higher number, for example.
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.
Nope, my statement is absolutely true, and your post merely another example of you trying to attack something never said by me.
The black troops we are talking about here were in the city of New Orleans. General Lovell withdrew his forces from the city when it was declared an open city -- and he didn't withdraw these people. This indicates he did not consider them part of his command, just as he did not withdraw other militia units in the city composed of whites that were not part of his command.
The City was under Martial Law.
Allunits (white and black) were under his command.
~
"With regard to the arms in the hands of the troops in New Orleans, they were State property, in the hands of State troops, where they still remain. They disbanded contrary to my orders, which were expressly that all armed men should rendezvous at this point, but I learn that the order was given by Generals [E. L.] Tracy and [B.] Buisson for them to disband."
Major-General Lewis, in overall command of State forces, disbanded the Native Guards.
Tracy and Buisson were brigadiers under Lewis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Let's be serious. Before the 1862 act was passed, the blacks had volunteered and organized as a regiment. Immediately after it was passed, their regiment was disbanded by the state government.
True...but all units (black and white) were disbanded.
Where are you going with this?
Do you still believe the new militia law was made expressly to get rid of the Native Guard?
__________________ 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."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
