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.
A few days ago UnionBlue asked if I had the number of slaves pressed into service by the Confederate Army. I suppose that is an honest inquiry and not a way of trying to avoid the issue that the Union Army did not care a great deal about freedom for black people during much of the war.
The answer to the question is that most African Americans doing duty with the Confederate army were hired by the government or accompanied their masters to the war. The "impressment" of slaves by the Confederate government was short-term to meet local emergencies.
Braxton Bragg, in Feb., 1863, issued a general order that "All employees of this army, white as well as black, shall receive the same rations, quarters, and medical care."
Should these laborers be called "Black Confederates?" They were doing necessary jobs to support the war effort.
Should these laborers be called "Black Confederates?" They were doing necessary jobs to support the war effort.
If nothing else, it brings to the forefront a necessary element in the discussion: definition.
I'd consider a soldier every black who wore a uniform (or what might pass for a uniform) -- or even travelled with and served the army in the most menial capacity. I would not count local laborers impressed to build a fortification, nor personal servants. Anyone is entitled to apply his own definition, but everyone ought to determine the reasons behind that definition.
Some advance the idea of Black Confederates to put some lipstick on the pig. Some denigrate the idea to force the pig to look in a mirror. Neither motive involves the study of history.
There was a point in there somewhere when I started this post. Please excuse the ramble -- I haven't had my coffee yet.
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
Dear Ole,
I must disagreed with your definition. A bus driver or mail carrier, or a McDonald's worker wears a uniform. A soldier carries a weapon. The CSA was a slaveowning society, and its army was a slaveowning army. The slaves that accompanied officers, or were used as teamsters or laborers of other types. If they weren't digging fortifications or driving wagons, they would be forced to do some other manual labor for their masters.
There is obviously not equivalence with the Union army "pressing" escaped slaves into labor. That was harsh, and maybe unjust, but it was paid, and temporary. For the slaves employed by the CS military it was their ordinary, hopeless existence, in a new setting.
The fight by USCT regiments, NOT to be employed as laborers, but as soldiers had a point: black men had to play an equal part in the fight, in order to gain citizenship after the war.
Well, Matthew, you were invited to define "soldier," and I guess you did. The uniformed aides, cooks, farriers, teamsters and HQ clerks were therefore not soldiers. And I didn't think to include "military" as a modifier of "uniform." I thought that would be understood.
Hereinafter, I will use the term soldier to define only uniformed, volunteer, musket-toting personnel.
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
Dear Ole,
I must disagreed with your definition. A bus driver or mail carrier, or a McDonald's worker wears a uniform. A soldier carries a weapon. The CSA was a slaveowning society, and its army was a slaveowning army. The slaves that accompanied officers, or were used as teamsters or laborers of other types. If they weren't digging fortifications or driving wagons, they would be forced to do some other manual labor for their masters.
Actually, those described as "servants" (in the Confederate army) were often in the proximity of battle (and carrying weapons).
They had a somewhat different role/relationship than "servants" in the Federal army.
In the North they were hired strictly for labor purposes whereas those in the South usually had close personal ties with whom they served (grew up together on the same farm, etc.). They often referred to themselves as "body guards."
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew
There is obviously not equivalence with the Union army "pressing" escaped slaves into labor. That was harsh, and maybe unjust, but it was paid, and temporary. For the slaves employed by the CS military it was their ordinary, hopeless existence, in a new setting.
Slave labor was also used by the North in constructing forts, earthworks, etc. I don't know the exact stats on the subject...but wouldn't be surprised to find out the North used more slave labor than the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew
The fight by USCT regiments, NOT to be employed as laborers, but as soldiers had a point: black men had to play an equal part in the fight, in order to gain citizenship after the war.
Dear Ole,
Of course you're right, many "real" soldiers don't carry rifles. My father in law used to say. "I was with Patton in the 3rd Army,"(dramatic pause), "payroll." He used to say straightfaced: "earned a purple heart in France, 1944"(dramatic pause)"cut my finger changing my type writer ribbon."
Dear Larry,
The servants that accompanied CSA officers to do their laundry and polish their boots and cook and wash and what ever servants do may have loved their master or hated his guts. It didn't matter. They were stuck with him for the rest of their lives, and their children too.
Unless master decided to sell him, or he cut out for the Union lines, or the Yankees won the war.
These servant were not considered soldiers. They were considered servants and slaves, whose rations, privileges and lives depended on the whim of their masters.
Dear Larry,
I don't believe the Union used slave laborers, although there may be cases among troops from the loyal slave states(i.e. Maryland).
Typically, laborers employed by the Union army were paid ten dollars a month. One of the struggles of the early black regiments like the First South Carolina Volunteers, or the 54th Massachusetts was to be paid a soldier's wage of $13 a month to avoid being classified as laborers, less than full soldiers.
Dear Larry,
I don't believe the Union used slave laborers, although there may be cases among troops from the loyal slave states(i.e. Maryland).
Typically, laborers employed by the Union army were paid ten dollars a month. One of the struggles of the early black regiments like the First South Carolina Volunteers, or the 54th Massachusetts was to be paid a soldier's wage of $13 a month to avoid being classified as laborers, less than full soldiers.
Dear Larry,
I don't believe the Union used slave laborers
They did.
*
I haven't done a lot of research on it...but I did find this-
"GENERAL ORDERS,
HDQRS. FIFTH DIV., ARMY OF THE TENN.,
Numbers 67.
Memphis, August 8, 1862.
I. All able-bodied negroes who apply for work at Fort Pickering will be received and put to work by the engineer in charge...the names of owners and slaves registered....An account will be opened with each negro....but no wages will be paid until the courts determine whether the negro be slave or free....
II. The post quartermaster...will in like manner employ a force of about 100 negroes out of those who apply....These will in like manner be entitled to rations, necessary clothing, and tobacco, but the pay must be reserved until the proper judicial tribunals determine to whom such labor and wages belong.
V. ....loyal masters will recover their slaves and the wages they have earned during their temporary use by the military authorities....
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
RebProf 
Linear Mode
