Black Confederates at the Siege of Spanish Fort (Mobile Campaign 1865)

[larry_cockerham]

Gentlemen, the discussion over pay for the Confederate soldiers was a bit of a mute point. The AOT to my knowledge wasn't paid after January 1864.

[unionblue]

Larry,

Now here you have me, as I am quite certain that pay for any Confederate soldier by this stage in the war was very moot point.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

OK. Pay for confederate soldiers is moot. And it would have been whether the soldier was black or white. The point, I believe -- was there a law excluding blacks from Confederate service as a musket-toting soldier? I think there was an understanding that blacks, free or slave, should not be armed. It needn't have been written or discussed in the halls of legislatures.

Ole

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by ole

OK. Pay for confederate soldiers is moot. And it would have been whether the soldier was black or white. The point, I believe -- was there a law excluding blacks from Confederate service as a musket-toting soldier? I think there was an understanding that blacks, free or slave, should not be armed. It needn't have been written or discussed in the halls of legislatures.

Ole

In the Confederate Congress on the debate on the impressment of free blacks and slaves for labor (either 1864 or 1865)...there were two amendments proposed that expressly stated that such persons would not be used as soldiers...(though there was nothing in the Act that implied such duty).

The amendments were voted down.

*

Will look this up again and post later.

[Battalion]

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...002&linkText=1

21-48 vote
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...002&linkText=1

[ole]

Battalion:

Thanks for posting links to those pages. It's clear that the CS legislators didn't care to specify that black soldiers were not to be armed. Their motives for voting down those amendments may be attributed to the late date: January, 1865. Or maybe not.

So far, it's looking like there was no CSA law against arming the black. I'm still supposing that the legislators saw no need for one -- until it was too late. To spell out the prohibition would be insane as well as unnecessary. There is still the question: Why would the legislature need to authorize black soldiers if there was no law prohibiting it?

Thanks for those links.
Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Gentlemen, I suspect the situation in much of the south during 1864-65 and a while before that was that 'when the yanks are coming, you stand toe to toe and offer anyone a gun who can shoot'. A few black southerners rose to the occasion, most obviously didn't. I guess their degree of welcome depended on who was being shot at and needed help.

[ole]

Larry:

In the real world, that is most certainly true. Units in the hinterlands, most notably Forrest's, Didn't much pay attention to what Richmond considered legal or illegal.

Ole

[rbenne]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Ray,

Have you read through the Black Confederate thread? There is a lot of information posted there that might give you some information. You'll find it on the General Discussion Forum.

Unionblue

Yes I have, and zero info on the subject there as well. I have yet to see a single piece of legislation to that effect in any southern state or the confederacy.

[gary]

BTW, going back to the original inquiry in this thread, black slaves were hired out to work as laborers on the defenses of Battery Wagner (and Fort Sumter). Care had to be exercised less they were killed or injured. The slaveowners wouldn't allow their slaves to be drafted for their labor (and yes, the slaveowners were paid for the services of their slaves). Same thing with the fortifications around Richmond and Petersburg. A lot of slave labor went into building them long before the Siege of Petersburg took place.