Abbeville Institute on Black Confederates

C.W. Roden

Formerly: SouthernFriedOtaku
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Location
South Carolina, USA, Earth
Looking at the SCV's main page, they make the following claim when it comes to numbers:

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story.​

https://scv.org/contributed-works/black-confederates/
13,000 is likely a very liberal estimation, but not far from what is true. Thank you sir!
 

C.W. Roden

Formerly: SouthernFriedOtaku
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Location
South Carolina, USA, Earth
The one I belonged had no speakers or presentations, they did the cemetery thing but was mainly a few who wanted to everything. It didn't last long, think the chapter went under.

Perhaps your in area with multiple choices unionblue, there was only one less then a HR drive here, and it went under as it didn't do much
That tends to happen sometimes. For myself I can only say that I joined for the history and to help with restoration projects. Politics are not my thing unless they interfere with the former.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Looking at the SCV's main page, they make the following claim when it comes to numbers:

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story.​

https://scv.org/contributed-works/black-confederates/

Other camps make other claims.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Here's my estimate...
Enlisted
Blacks in "white" units (1861-65) - 3,000
Militia (1861-62) - 2,000
Act of February 17, 1864 - 4,000-5,000
Act of March 13, 1865 - 500+

Non-Enlisted
Servants and Laborers (1861-65) - 50,000+

@19thGeorgia ,

I trust your estimates more than others that I have seen.

But I note the word "estimate" vice "proven beyond doubt."

Again, my only disagreement with your estimates is in the definition of "black confederate" as I find it impossible to determine under such a definition who was coerced to serve and who freely served while a slave at all times.

Unionblue
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Here's my estimate...
Enlisted
Blacks in "white" units (1861-65) - 3,000
Militia (1861-62) - 2,000
Act of February 17, 1864 - 4,000-5,000
Act of March 13, 1865 - 500+

Non-Enlisted
Servants and Laborers (1861-65) - 50,000+
Rather than each of us producing our own estimates using our own criteria, why not use the data already accumulated in threads in this Forum. For example,
 

AshleyMel

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
One of the wonderful benefits of the internet and the great research that can be done is more and more records of these men are being discovered. One of my friends found several black men's CSR records within her own research of her family. This information is so important in helping complete family history for people like me with little to no information to start with. I don't really care for all the fussin' y'all do about this issue but I do care that their records are preserved and available. Each and everyone of them had a story and their own place in history. I have said this before, each man is important and had value.
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
@19thGeorgia , @AshleyMel , @Andersonh1 , @lelliott19 , and @east tennessee roots ,

How many documented black confederates will it take to prove that the American Civil War was not brought about by slavery?

Sincerely,
Unionblue
None.

"The North is fighting for money. It is fighting for its supremacy to rule and levy tribute upon us. Its all is based upon its connection with us--commerce, manufactures, industry and wealth of all sorts. The people of the North know it. Financial ruin for all times stares them in the face. They are staking all--life, blood, political liberty--all upon the hazard. They must have money." -Charleston Mercury, August 8, 1861
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
None.

"The North is fighting for money. It is fighting for its supremacy to rule and levy tribute upon us. Its all is based upon its connection with us--commerce, manufactures, industry and wealth of all sorts. The people of the North know it. Financial ruin for all times stares them in the face. They are staking all--life, blood, political liberty--all upon the hazard. They must have money." -Charleston Mercury, August 8, 1861

@19thGeorgia ,

Sorry, but a 19th century newspaper editorial is not going to cut it as a reason for the Civil War.

Besides, you already know that the Charleston Mercury printed many an editorial, some even claiming the war was brought about by slavery, $4 BILLION dollars worth of slavery.

Just thought I had a handle on the reason for so much black confederate research.

Unionblue
 

AshleyMel

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
@19thGeorgia , @AshleyMel , @Andersonh1 , @lelliott19 , and @east tennessee roots ,

How many documented black confederates will it take to prove that the American Civil War was not brought about by slavery?

Sincerely,
Unionblue
I have stated many times, my interest in these men is in part, but mostly, due to my personal desire to try to search out my personal ancestry. Over the course of my short time studying this issue, I have seen so much contention over these men that it baffles me. It is silly, really, especially when we all agree that their stories need to be told.
I do not believe I have ever said on this forum what I personally believe about what brought about the Civil War. If there are personal assumptions or questions about this, please send me a message! I do not wish or desire to bog down these threads with anymore of my personal ramblings than I already do. 😊 I am here to learn and hopefully research and one day find my story.
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Here's my estimate...
Enlisted
Blacks in "white" units (1861-65) - 3,000
Militia (1861-62) - 2,000
Act of February 17, 1864 - 4,000-5,000
Act of March 13, 1865 - 500+

Non-Enlisted
Servants and Laborers (1861-65) - 50,000+

So essentially 500+ (by your estimate) combat soldiers who hardly ever saw a battle after the Confederate government officially passed the Act to raise regiments of black combat soldiers.
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Closer to 4,000.

And all of '4000 black men' were lawfully recruited by the Confederate government and received full recognition as combat soldiers by the law of the Confederate government before Act of March, 1865?

I am sure you already know only very few black Confederate combat units 'entered service' after Act of March, 1865 and even they hardly ever fought in the battles.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
And all of '4000 black men' were lawfully recruited by the Confederate government and received full recognition as combat soldiers by the law of the Confederate government before Act of March, 1865?

I am sure you already know only very few black Confederate combat units 'entered service' after Act of March, 1865 and even they hardly ever fought in the battles.

@Horrido67 ,

I am certain that @19thGeorgia does an excellent job of acquiring historical documentation of these men and can fully determine who of them were servants, stewards, muscians, slaves, body servants, cooks, and even those who were armed, by who, when, and where.

Let's give him a chance to sort things out for us concerning this "4,000 armed" figure.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
There's armed and then there's soldiers.

What are these 4,000 you mention? Soldiers or negro servants/slaves permitted to bear arms?
The 4,000 I describe were among the enlisted-
Enlisted
Blacks in "white" units (1861-65) - 3,000
Militia (1861-62) - 2,000
Act of February 17, 1864 - 4,000-5,000
Act of March 13, 1865 - 500+

Some of these were armed too-
Non-Enlisted
Servants and Laborers (1861-65) - 50,000+
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The 4,000 were among the enlisted-
Enlisted
Blacks in "white" units (1861-65) - 3,000
Militia (1861-62) - 2,000
Act of February 17, 1864 - 4,000-5,000
Act of March 13, 1865 - 500+

Non-Enlisted
Servants and Laborers (1861-65) - 50,000+

@19thGeorgia ,

Thank you for your above reply.

Much is made of the fact that when the Confederate Congress began it's debate on whether to arm the slaves so that they could help defend the Confederacy in late 1864 to early 1865, no mention was made of any blacks, free or slave, that had previously served as an example that such could make good soldiers. Robert E. Lee made no mention of such when he endorsed the idea in a letter, President Davis made no such mention when he suppressed General Cleburne's memo suggesting that freedom be given to the slaves in exchange for their service to the Confederacy.

I have no doubt whatsoever that your research has provided solid evidence of the numbers above you post. I can see where the 50,000 Servants and Laborers would have no impact on that debate by the Confederate Congress. But I am curious that the 3,000 you mention that are in "white" units and the 2,000 serving in militia units are not brought up as examples during that debate. Surely this would be support for those like Cleburne and others who wanted slaves as troops and as examples of their previous service as armed soldiers. Why would you think they would not have been mentioned or put forth to support the idea of larger numbers of enlisting blacks?

And you mention an "Act of February 17, 1864 - 4,000 - 5,000." What was this act and did it entail the enlistment of said blacks as soldiers or laborers?

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Top