Abbeville Institute on Black Confederates

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
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?

'CHAP. LXXIX.--An Act to increase the efficiency of the army by the employment of free negroes and slaves in certain capacities.'

It was basically an Act that authorized the Confederate government to impress free negroes and slaves into non-combatant services such as teamster. They were not combat soldiers and I am sure @19thGeorgia who seems like someone who has done a lot of research on this matter knows that too.

This tiresome debate basically stems from the problem that some people just can't get over the fact that the Confederate government officially refused to use blacks as combat soldiers until March, 1865 - only a few weeks before the end of the Civil War.

By the way, Merry Christmas to all
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
'CHAP. LXXIX.--An Act to increase the efficiency of the army by the employment of free negroes and slaves in certain capacities.'

It was basically an Act that authorized the Confederate government to impress free negroes and slaves into non-combatant services such as teamster. They were not combat soldiers and I am sure @19thGeorgia who seems like someone who has done a lot of research on this matter knows that too.

This tiresome debate basically stems from the problem that some people just can't get over the fact that the Confederate government officially refused to use blacks as combat soldiers until March, 1865 - only a few weeks before the end of the Civil War.

By the way, Merry Christmas to all

@Horrido67 ,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question to @19thGeorgia .

It is appreicated.

And a Happy New Year to you!

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
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+

@19thGeorgia ,

So what I gather from your data above is that there may have been 3,000 blacks in white units, 2,000 blacks in state militia units. and perhaps 500+ blacks enlisted as actual soldiers under the Act of March 13, 1865. This comes to an estimate of 5,000 armed blacks in your own view.

We cannot count the Servants and Laborers (1861-65) 50,000+ as armed or soldiers, nor can we count the 4,000-5,000 blacks impressed for labor by the Act of February 17, 1864.

This about right?

Unionblue
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
@19thGeorgia ,

So what I gather from your data above is that there may have been 3,000 blacks in white units, 2,000 blacks in state militia units. and perhaps 500+ blacks enlisted as actual soldiers under the Act of March 13, 1865. This comes to an estimate of 5,000 armed blacks in your own view.

We cannot count the Servants and Laborers (1861-65) 50,000+ as armed or soldiers, nor can we count the 4,000-5,000 blacks impressed for labor by the Act of February 17, 1864.

This about right?

Unionblue
Will have to discuss this on another day. Too much going on right now...

🎄🎁🥁🎺🧸🌠🚂🍨🍰🥮🍩🎅 Merry Christmas
 

CLuckJD

Private
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Location
MS, USA
Your list of 11 includes 3 unnamed .. 1 "Uncle Billy," 2 never accepted (for) Confederate service, at least 1 body servant … a civilian, and duplicate entries … On the (Union) side -- (we) have more than 200,000 enlisted men, 150-200,000 noncombatant support, and 500,000-1,000,000 civilians (for) the cause of freedom.
Well-summarized and my precise intended point all along regarding so-called Black confederates. De facto nonexistence for all actual intentions or factual historic mentions.
There's something almost touching, even sad, about trying to draw moral equivalence from slim material, and continuing to use a handful of ambiguous examples to counter overwhelming truth.
Amen! But can we realistically expect anything else, given neo-confederates' true circumstance? All loss requires working through grief before final acceptance. Denial is the first stage of grief resolution and don't forget the glaring moral issue staring these folks down. So, try to put yourself in their shoes. Although outright lies and deceit are never acceptable, the rest of us mortals also must let them be just as we are; for some brief time or small place.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
On the other side of the equation -- the side of the United States....150-200,000 noncombatant support, and somewhere between half a million to a million civilians [for labor]....
Yeah, I've heard about those laborers for the Union. This is a small example, but the treatment was general-

Information from the "Report of Thomas Hood and S. W. Bostwick" (December 28, 1864)
"Of colored refugees who have performed work for the government and their pay."

Laborers....#Paid
..2768......…..310 Nashville (under Capt. Morton)
..1383......…..387 Nashville (under Lt. Burroughs)
...227...........128 Clarksville
...110......…....71 Murfreesboro
...395......….....2 Fort Donaldson
4883...……...898
-
Pay due laborers under Capt. Morton- $85,858.50
Amount paid- $13,648.00

Pay due laborers under Lt. Burroughs- $44,479.31
Amount paid- $16,358.00

"The number of colored refugees employed by Captain Morton, and who have died without receiving their pay, is estimated at from six to eight hundred. This would be twenty-five per cent of the entire number employed by him; surely a most extraordinary mortality, the predicate for which we could not ascertain."

"...a very large proportion of them never will or can be paid."

There's something almost touching, even sad, about trying to draw some moral equivalence....
No, we sure aren't trying to draw any equivalence to that. Not at all.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Location
Arlington, Virginia
Yeah, I've heard about those laborers for the Union. This is a small example, but the treatment was general-

Information from the "Report of Thomas Hood and S. W. Bostwick" (December 28, 1864)
"Of colored refugees who have performed work for the government and their pay."

Laborers....#Paid
..2768......…..310 Nashville (under Capt. Morton)
..1383......…..387 Nashville (under Lt. Burroughs)
...227...........128 Clarksville
...110......…....71 Murfreesboro
...395......….....2 Fort Donaldson
4883...……...898
-
Pay due laborers under Capt. Morton- $85,858.50
Amount paid- $13,648.00

Pay due laborers under Lt. Burroughs- $44,479.31
Amount paid- $16,358.00

"The number of colored refugees employed by Captain Morton, and who have died without receiving their pay, is estimated at from six to eight hundred. This would be twenty-five per cent of the entire number employed by him; surely a most extraordinary mortality, the predicate for which we could not ascertain."

"...a very large proportion of them never will or can be paid."

No, we sure aren't trying to draw any equivalence to that. Not at all.
No, you can't draw an equivalence because you have no data at all on the outstanding debts to the Confederacy's enslaved workforce. Oh, that's right -- there weren't any debts to those enslaved... just their owners...
 
Top