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.
Were free blacks used as laborers? Sure were. The Union paid a set rate of ten dollars a month. There was a deliberate attempt by conservative democrats in Congress to discriminate between white and blacks soldiers by declaring that black soldiers would be paid as laborers. A point that Battalion, 140 years late, brings up above. And as also noted above, in 1864, Congress equalized pay for all soldiers regardly of race. Various actions to recover the difference from the previous, lower paid months dragged on after the war.
Both Union and Confederates impressed workmen on occasion, although usually somebody had to get paid. If it was a Confederate its a case of blacks loyally serving the Confederacy, if its a Union incident, its a example of the cruel exploitation of blacks by the North.
As far as how much CS and US privates were paid, differing rates of inflation for north and south resulting in wildly different purchasing power.
cw1865,
an excellent point about teamsters, etc., that get counted as CS supporters, but not as Union supporters. Its been made a half a dozen times before, but not by you! I don't think "paramilitary" is the right term, since that usually refers to organizations like home guards and other part time organizations who did police or security tasks, rather than combat.
As far as I know...all State units were disbanded on 15 February 1862.
Nope. If they were, there would be no units in the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
At this point they still existed as organizations but were in a temporary legal limbo.
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Most of them were re-instated with the former officers receiving new commissions.
You think so? How many organizations were there before February 15, 1862, and how many existed immediately afterward? Since we know, the Native Guards got the axe and were not reinstated, what makes them so special other than being composed of black men? If you are claiming all the white units were reinstated and the only black unit was not, what does that tell you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
You certainly implied it with this statement-
"They were officially disbanded by Louisiana legislature in early 1862 when they passed the new 'white males only' militia act."
The "whites only" was also in the 1861 law.
And you will note that the organization was accepted under the 1861 act and disbanded under the 1862 act. Please explain why that was done.
For one thing, acts of the legislature are normally a hodge-podge. Americans invented terms like "log-rolling" to describe how state legislatures enact legislation, and this was probably no different. All it would take would be a few politicians who decided they wanted it this way, and if their votes were important, they'd get what they wanted. If the Governor had other things he considered more important, he'd chop the Native Guard in a heartbeat. All normal, everyday politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
Governor Moore was the one who initiated the re-organization of the militia and the new militia law.
Please explain why Governor Moore -the one who accepted the Native Guards and then later re-instated them- would be the driving force behind getting rid of them?
Beats me, I never said he was. You seem to be insisting that he must have been, so you explain it.
What we do know is that the unit WAS disbanded and the Governor allowed it to remain in that situation from February 15 until March 24. We know that while the unit participated in the "grand reviews" of November 1861 and early January 1862, they are not part of the February 1862 "grand review" in New Orleans called by Governor Moore. The February one had a supposed 25-26,000 men in the parade (apparently 6,000 of them actually with arms), just like the first ones. Yet the Native Guard isn't there.
Why not? And why does the Governor suddenly call for the Native Guard to get back in touch with the state Militia commander? Two things: the battle of Shiloh, and the arrival of Farragut with a Union fleet at the mouth of the Mississippi.
Shiloh led to several regiments being sent to Corinth, taking with them all available extra arms and stripping the New Orleans defenses of necessary troops. The Governor, desperate for men, suddenly calls up disbanded units he was perfectly willing to get along without before this when the emergency caused by Farragut hits the fan.
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.
cw1865,
I hope you don't think I was being snarky. The point you make is an appropriate, valid one. But its been made before without even getting a response.
Remember Monty Python? The guy who goes to an office and buys an argument. "An argument isn't just contradicting, an argument is a related series of statements leading to a conclusion!" "No it isn't." "Yes it is!"
Were free blacks used as laborers? Sure were. The Union paid a set rate of ten dollars a month. There was a deliberate attempt by conservative democrats in Congress to discriminate between white and blacks soldiers by declaring that black soldiers would be paid as laborers. A point that Battalion, 140 years late, brings up above. And as also noted above, in 1864, Congress equalized pay for all soldiers regardly of race. Various actions to recover the difference from the previous, lower paid months dragged on after the war.
They certainly were discrepancies in the pay -- and the Union (slowly, grudgingly) fixed them. But note the difference of kind here: the Union actually paid blacks who served as "soldiers", if unfairly; the Confederates didn't allow them to be "soldiers" in almost all cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
Both Union and Confederates impressed workmen on occasion, although usually somebody had to get paid. If it was a Confederate its a case of blacks loyally serving the Confederacy, if its a Union incident, its a example of the cruel exploitation of blacks by the North.
Actually, if it is the Confederates, it is the slaves' master who gets paid for the use of his "property". He even gets a payment if the slave dies for the loss of his "property". Free blacks might be impressed later in the war, and paid.
The same, of course, might be true of the Union in some cases, particularly early in the war, if they impressed or hired slaves from their masters in loyal areas. But otherwise, it would be the laborer himself being paid, in cash or in kind.
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.
None of this counts black civilians who worked for the Union army as servants, teamsters, laborers, etc. because the rest of the world does not consider those people to be "soldiers". White people doing the same jobs were not considered "soldiers" either, unless they were actually enlisted in the Army. It is only the people who are determined to find "black Confederates" who want to see civilians doing these jobs as "soldiers".
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
Its probably best referred to as paramilitary then?
Not even that. Hired help is all it is: civilians working for the military. Someone isn't "paramilitary" because an officer pays him to do his laundry and clean up his tent, or because the colonel hired a bunch of day-laborers to dig ditches or latrines, or to load boxes onto the wagon.
Somehow, a slave doing this is supposed to mystically become a "black Confederate" and be considered a "soldier" fighting for the South. I have never been able to understand why.
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.
As one of my friends in Virginia tells me, Confederate privates made something like $13/month; teamsters made $2/day; and free blacks had a choice about which one they would be for most of the war. He says they weren't stupid, so they didn't join the Army.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary
Confederate privates made $11 a month. Union privates made $13 a month.
Weren't free blacks also used as laborers? Secondly, could they be impressed as laborers?
My mistake then; Steve probably told me $11.
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.
BTW, I remember reading about an incident involving two Irish, one Union and the other Confederate, who were shooting at each other from behind cover. The Union man cried out, "What are ye fighting for, Pat?" The Confederate responded, "$11 a month!" "Ha!," cried the Union man, "I'm fighting for $13 a month!"
Confederate soldiers in the Army of Tennessee apparently weren't paid much of anything after January 1864. Just a change to dodge a bullet or two. On the other hand, there wasn't much place to spend money in a Confederate army camp. Food and clothing were the priorities.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Heck, with inflation in the Confederacy, $11 Confederate a month probably didn't buy anything. Like Larry said, food & clothing were more important. BTW, that's just another incentive to gwine the Yankees. $13 Federal goes further even with those skinflint suttlers.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
