Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
1) Confederate pensions. These were paid by the states (as were prosthetics).
2) I don't think there's any myth that no one cares about blacks who served on either side during the war. Here's a list of books that are on my shelves:
Segars: Black Southerners in Confederate Armies
Rollins: Black Southerners in Gray
Barrow: Forgotten Confederates
Hollandworth: The Louisiana Native Guards
Jordan: Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (the best!)
Longacre: A Regiment of Slaves
Trudeau: Like Men of War
Yacovone: A Voice of Thunder
Bowley: A Boy Lieutenant
Adams: On the Altar of Freedom
Looby: The Complete Civil War Journal and Selected Letters of Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Emilio: A Brave Black Regiment
My point, books are being printed and more importantly, people are buying and reading them.
3) I'm going to have to do research on those No' Carolinians. I know the TarHeels brought some slaves along as manservants and it is possible some of those manservants armed themselves and fought too.
Question: You quote of figure of 65,000 blacks attached to the CS armies, when you "divide them" with teamsters, servants etc. Does this mean 65,000 including teamsters, laboreres, cooks, servants etc., or 65,000 after subtracting teamsters, cooks etc?
No, from what I have read and seen, most conservative numbers thinks that the true number of black Confederate solders would have been around 5% of the 65,000. I have seen numbere as high as 85,000. WHile some groups take that number as a total of solders fof their agendas, I don't think any reasonable person can believe there were 65,000. So I tend to lean with the 5 or maybe even 10% of 65,000.
Don't know if I said that in any previous post or not.
__________________ A cat can have kittens in the oven...but dat don't make-um biskets
John R. Tucker Sr.
Last edited by Buffalo-Guard; 03-08-2006 at 08:44 AM.
[quote=matthew mckeon]
Blacks as soldiers was a shockingly new innovation in the war, that had wide reaching consequences in the North, and would have been a tremendous impact on South had it been implemented on a wide scale, had it been carried out [quote]
Quite true but neither the north or south leared from the past. Blacks faught for both the British and the Colonies. They faught in 1812. Even while they defended the United States, slavery was still the law of the land.
__________________ A cat can have kittens in the oven...but dat don't make-um biskets
You state, "I don't care if they(blacks) were Union or Confederate." While that is true for you, unfortunately there are some people who blur the distinctions as to the roles blacks played in the Union and Confederate armies. They seek to distort or obscure the issue to serve a modern agenda: improving the reputation of the CSA by downplaying the centrality of slavery to CSA society and the war.
To obscure the reality of Black Confederates can also be viewed as an agenda...to protect the reputation of the North.
The aim of the Northerner is to focus singularly on the subject of slavery (exclusively that which existed in the South) in order to ignore all other issues...which are far less flattering to it's image...
...anything that threatens the image must be opposed at all costs.
About black soldiers in the Rev. and War of 1812. I can't speak to 1812, I just don't know enough to answer usefully. (although there was a unit of Canadian blacks in the force that repulsed the US invasion of 1813)
In the Rev., both the British and the Americans offered freedom to slaves to enlist in their respective armies. Free blacks fought as early as Lexington and Concord, but of course in the Rev. neither side could be seen as a force to abolish slavery.
Dear Battalion,
I disagree with your statement that to accept the central role slavery played in antebellum Southern society and the central role it played in bringing on the war is somehow is some sort of Yankee propaganda.
The aim of this Northerner is to understand the past, as it was, not as we wished it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm
If these guys are "mostly slaves" as you suggest, then they didn't exactly enlist, did they?
Battalion replies:
Most of the names are taken from muster rolls (= enlisted).
Interesting.
So were soldiers on either side that were conscripted, shown in a separate "conscription roll" and not in the regular muster rolls(which appear to only show soldiers that actually enlisted on their own free will)?
Chuck in IL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm
If these guys are "mostly slaves" as you suggest, then they didn't exactly enlist, did they?
Battalion replies:
Most of the names are taken from muster rolls (= enlisted).
Interesting.
So were soldiers on either side that were conscripted, shown in a separate "conscription roll" and not in the regular muster rolls(which appear to only show soldiers that actually enlisted on their own free will)?
Chuck in IL.
As far as I know there were no separate rolls.
The ones who were conscripted would simply be noted on the roll as "conscript."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
