Researcher Says Black Texans In Confederate Army

That's where they were recruited, right?

Since I'm doing some research right now on a 54th Mass recruit who enlisted in Massachusetts but was born in Virginia, and therefore could count as a southerner, I wonder how the totals would look if sorted by birthplace.

The 54th Mass. was a Volunteer, not a USCI unit, so generalized USCT figures may not apply equally to them.. While a few were of southern birth, the great majority of the men in the regiment were recruited in the North, largely in the midwest (Mass. sent recruiting agents all across the country). I don't believe any of them came directly from the south, those southern-born had gone north before their enlistment. The same goes for its sister-regiment, 55th Mass.

jno
 
It always appears (to me anyway),

That whenever the evidence for black Confederate soldiers (from Texas or elsewhere) gets thin or very apparent to be overblown, it becomes almost a necessity to attack/question the service of United States Colored Troops, who actually do have irrefutable evidence and sources that show such served as actual soldiers during the Civil War.

Just my opinion.

Unionblue
 
It always appears (to me anyway),

That whenever the evidence for black Confederate soldiers (from Texas or elsewhere) gets thin or very apparent to be overblown, it becomes almost a necessity to attack/question the service of United States Colored Troops....
Unionblue
Attack? Where?

All I saw was "Johan_Steele" and some others baiting the subject several times before anyone replied.

And those replies were to their mis-statements of fact in regard to numbers served and losses in battle.
 
In any case, there is no evidence that those in the csa gov't, including its military, who would have had to know that there were blacks serving in the ranks of csa armies as paid and pensioned soldiers, knew any such thing, except to deny it by their words and/or actions.
Not to mention that to have done so, would have been an admission that the cause for secession and war, for which the csa fought, was and always had been, wrong.
 
So to summarize the thread, there is no evidence to support the "researcher's" theory. On the other hand there is a well documented history of around 180,000 Blacks serving as soldiers in the Federal armies.

Anyone else get tired of reruns?
 
The 54th Mass. was a Volunteer, not a USCI unit, so generalized USCT figures may not apply equally to them.. While a few were of southern birth, the great majority of the men in the regiment were recruited in the North, largely in the midwest (Mass. sent recruiting agents all across the country). I don't believe any of them came directly from the south, those southern-born had gone north before their enlistment. The same goes for its sister-regiment, 55th Mass.

jno

Didn't Massachusetts have trouble recruiting from their own population, so were forced to recruit in the South to meet their quotas?
 
In fact though, The Union needed the USCT's to end the war sooner than without them and did everything necessary to secure their support. The south deliberately chose defeat, rather than free their slaves.
 
Didn't Massachusetts have trouble recruiting from their own population, so were forced to recruit in the South to meet their quotas?


Massachusetts sent about 5,000 men over and above its assigned quota of troops (white and black) based on overall population, but was still willing to support more regiments. By the summer of '63, the state had agents in many parts of the country offering bounties for volunteers who would enlist in Bay State units. Some of these were in areas of the south under Federal control. I believe the total number of men recruited outside the state was under 2,000, white and black. But I'll have to check on that figure, it may be inaccurate. I have the Mass. AGO reports, and will have to go through them to find out.

jno
 
Attack? Where?

All I saw was "Johan_Steele" and some others baiting the subject several times before anyone replied.

And those replies were to their mis-statements of fact in regard to numbers served and losses in battle.

Just because you don't like what a source says does not mean it is a mis-statement. Looks arguable that he USCT provided more men than Texas & w/ most of them being Southerners... well it does speak to which side the black man was more likely to choose 1861-65. No baiting at all. You haven't even put forward a position on why you are so argumentatitive when in the past you've claimed approx 5k black men fought for the CS... a number less than half of that put forward by Union Blue. Seems to me you & your brethern doth protest too much.
 
The 54th Mass. was a Volunteer, not a USCI unit, so generalized USCT figures may not apply equally to them.. While a few were of southern birth, the great majority of the men in the regiment were recruited in the North, largely in the midwest (Mass. sent recruiting agents all across the country). I don't believe any of them came directly from the south, those southern-born had gone north before their enlistment. The same goes for its sister-regiment, 55th Mass.


For the record, I was in error here. Massachusetts supplied a total of 4,731 colored soldiers. Of those 1,214 were "recruited in Rebel states", and the remainder in the North; of whom "2,228 enlisted here" in Massachusetts.

Overall, Massachusetts provided 159,165 men (including 26,168 Navy), which was 13,083 in excess of the assigned quotas. Interestingly, 1,257 whites were enlisted "in Rebel states" to serve in Bay State regiments.

These figures are from Massachusetts in the Rebellion, by Adjt. Gen. William Schouler (p.644)

jno
 
Attack? Where?

All I saw was "Johan_Steele" and some others baiting the subject several times before anyone replied.

And those replies were to their mis-statements of fact in regard to numbers served and losses in battle.

Battalion,

Not every post I make refers to your posts.

And when my posts do refer to a post of yours concerning United States Colored Troops or about the lack of evidence concerning black Confederate soldiers, it will be plainly evident.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Seriously, your side lost in 1865 they lost when the US flag became the one they swore allegiance to, they lost when it was their sons who went to war under the US flag and they lost when Jim Crow was ushered into the dustbin of history, tey lost when DiLorenzo & such was exposed as a fraud.

Can you provide me with a link to a resource that, in your opinion, serves to expose DiLorenzo as a fraud?

Thanks,

~SL
 
Do not google DiLorenze unless your inquisitiveness is massive and you have lots of time. Acadamia dumps on him, big time.
 
Back
Top