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.
GENERAL ORDERS,
HDQRS. FIFTH DIV., ARMY OF THE TENN.,
Numbers 67.
Memphis, August 8, 1862.
Strictly speaking, the orders would indicate official use of slaves. Technically speaking, their service to their masters was still preserved under the constitution, which would mean that the Army was using someone else's slaves.
The stated intent was to pay the owner of that labor -- if the man was free, the pay would go him; if his labor was the property of another, the pay would go to the owner.
Clearly the army in Memphis was willing to use slave labor. But it was paid slave labor. That makes an interesting ethical question, doesn't it?
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,
As far as I can understand from the link I read, the Army was paying either the laborer if he was free(fugitive from a disloyal owner), or paying his master if the owner was loyal(business as usual for slavery). One is ethical and one is not, and no prizes for guessing which is which.
This odious transaction is before either the EP, or the 13th Amendment of course.
Which is why I mentioned that the slave's obligation was still honored as constitutional.
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
The men who built Ft. Negley in Nashville would probably argue the part about the payment for labor? I suspect they were 'soldiers'. All Confederates with dark skin weren't slaves. Fact.
One is ethical and one is not, and no prizes for guessing which is which.
By the standards in place, August, 1862, both were ethical.
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
Strictly speaking, the orders would indicate official use of slaves. Technically speaking, their service to their masters was still preserved under the constitution, which would mean that the Army was using someone else's slaves.
The stated intent was to pay the owner of that labor -- if the man was free, the pay would go him; if his labor was the property of another, the pay would go to the owner.
Clearly the army in Memphis was willing to use slave labor. But it was paid slave labor. That makes an interesting ethical question, doesn't it?
Ole
The South did the same. They hired both free blacks and slaves (with slaveowners receiving the wages)...
...though most slaveowners were reluctant to hire them out.
I must disagree with one point made by McKeon. Not all soldiers, past or present, carry weapons. Engineers, once called sappers and miners, were not armed. Quartermaster troops were not armed. All these people were regularly enlisted, held rank, and drew pay.
During the C.W. the service of supply in both armies was not developed as it is today and both armies depended heavily on laborers. The interesting point is whether or not these people should be included in the definition of "soldier." They clearly supported the cause in which they were employed. Today they would be enlisted in a unit, hold rank, etc. How do we look at them?
Dear RebProf,
Your point about service troops is well taken. However slaves don't have a say whether they support the cause in which they are compelled to serve. The sight of blacks laboring in CSA camps and fortifications is a sign of the master's support of the CSA, not the slaves. (This works for the slaves employed by the Union Army in the example posted by Battalion).
Afterall prisoners making license plates in a state pen aren't really "supporting" the state.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
