An Analysis of Black Men in the Confederacy newspaper articles.

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
If anyone is interested we can analyze each newspaper article in the
Black men in the Confederate army" in the newspapers - 1861-1865
thread.


From post #1
"Hancock Jeffersonian", March 17, 1865
2d7bhb5.jpg


This suggest that Black Confederate Combatants were unknown before 1865 and even then unpopular.
The article is anonymous. Opinionated.

Historical Support Emphsis mine.
Black Confederates - Encyclopedia Virginia
That body had already defeated a bill calling for the involuntary enlistment of 200,000 black men, and would likely have defeated the Barksdale bill had not Virginia's two senators, R. M. T. Hunter and Allen T. Caperton, changed their votes due to instructions from the General Assembly.
 
From post #1
Black men in the Confederate army" in the newspapers - 1861-1865
From the New York Herald, January 23, 1862, a story from a contraband about a conscripted "negro regiment" under Albert Sydney Johnston:
2urw94m.jpg


My problems with this are:
  1. Anonymous. Is it real or made up? What is the credibly of either source here.
  2. Source is another newspaper.
  3. Sounds like Yellow journalism. Certainly is sensational.
  4. Stealing slaves for the benefit of the CSA seems very unlikely.
  5. Rounding up whites for a concentration camp also unlikely.
  6. This brief article suggests that there were more volunteers than arms meaning that the conscription in the article is fanciful.
    Kentucky in the Civil War - The Cincinnati Civil War Round Table
    This brief article suggests that there were more volunteers than arms meaning that the conscription in the article is fanciful.
  7. Edited to add.
    So far I find no online copy of a Cincinnati Times newspaper.

Yellow journalism
Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may includeexaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.[1] By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.[2]

 
Last edited:
I'm definitely curious to read your analysis. After seeing probably 100 of these types of stories, the ones that seem more credible to me are the ones that talk about smaller sightings and which give more specifics about names and places. Stories that talk about entire regiments seem less likely, particularly when the information is second or third-hand. And stories with sightings are an entirely different topic than the 1865 stories that discuss the national debate, or stories that discuss the already well-known Louisiana Guard. In other words, there are a lot of different takes on this topic in the newspapers of the 1860s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm definitely curious to read your analysis. After seeing probably 100 of these types of stories, the ones that seem more credible to me are the ones that talk about smaller sightings and which give more specifics about names and places. Stories that talk about entire regiments seem less likely, particularly when the information is second or third-hand. And stories with sightings are an entirely different topic than the 1865 stories that discuss the national debate, or stories that discuss the already well-known Louisiana Guard. In other words, there are a lot of different takes on this topic in the newspapers of the 1860s.
OTOH it is easier to post them than analyze them in any depth.
 
From
#2 Black men in the Confederate army" in the newspapers - 1861-1865
New York Herald, May 4 1862, a single mention of a "rebel negro rifleman".
2qkr0b6.jpg


My problems
  1. Anonymous. Is it real or made up? What is the credibly of the source.
  2. Looks like a propaganda piece.
  3. Berdan's United States sharpshooters in the Army of the Potomac, 1861-1865 mentions California Joe P49. 'The press of the North gave considerable space in noticing his feats of valor and his wonderful marksmanship. Columns of thrilling anecdotes or stories were published, in which this particular Sharpshooter was made the hero. Almost everything relating to the Sharpshooters in the way of extraordinary shooting, was credited to "California Joe."'

  4. Looks like the Sharpshooters were about 1500 rather than 3000. ibid p 17
  5. Ibid page 55 mentions a negro sniper killed about this time. However the author was not an eyewitness. Sergt. Andrews was the shooter. An analysis of that report is beyond the scope of this post.
 
From post #1
Black men in the Confederate army" in the newspapers - 1861-1865
From the New York Herald, January 23, 1862, a story from a contraband about a conscripted "negro regiment" under Albert Sydney Johnston:
2urw94m.jpg


My problems with this are:
  1. Anonymous. Is it real or made up? What is the credibly of either source here.
  2. Source is another newspaper.
  3. Sounds like Yellow journalism. Certainly is sensational.
  4. Stealing slaves for the benefit of the CSA seems very unlikely.
  5. Rounding up whites for a concentration camp also unlikely.
  6. This brief article suggests that there were more volunteers than arms meaning that the conscription in the article is fanciful.
  7. Edited to add.
    So far I find no evidence of a Cincinnati Times newspaper during the Civil War

Yellow journalism


LoC says there was a Cincinnati Times from 1860 to unknown date, and a Cincinnati Daily Times 1861 - 1871. No online holdings for either.
 
LoC says there was a Cincinnati Times from 1860 to unknown date, and a Cincinnati Daily Times 1861 - 1871. No online holdings for either.

Found it. Looks like no one has digitized it. Updated post to reflect this.
 
From post #1
Black men in the Confederate army" in the newspapers - 1861-1865
From the New York Herald, January 23, 1862, a story from a contraband about a conscripted "negro regiment" under Albert Sydney Johnston:
2urw94m.jpg


My problems with this are:
  1. Anonymous. Is it real or made up? What is the credibly of either source here.
  2. Source is another newspaper.
  3. Sounds like Yellow journalism. Certainly is sensational.
  4. Stealing slaves for the benefit of the CSA seems very unlikely.
  5. Rounding up whites for a concentration camp also unlikely.
  6. This brief article suggests that there were more volunteers than arms meaning that the conscription in the article is fanciful.
  7. Edited to add.
    So far I find no evidence of a Cincinnati Times newspaper during the Civil War

Yellow journalism


Interestingly enough the Ian Smith government in what was then Rhodesia made the same claim that they had more black volunteers then they did rifles to arm them.
That claim just like the claim that the Confederacy had more black volunteers then rifles to arm them was false.
Both the Confederacy and the Rhodesians
captured tons of small arms.
Colonel Freemantle mentions thousands of perfectly good Springfields rotting in the rain on the battle fields of Chancellorsville and the ORs mention thousands of British P53 Enfields being smuggled into Wilmington Nc. The Rhodesians could buy all they wanted from South Africa which produced their own rifles.
The difference between Rhodesia and the Confederacy is that the Rhodesians really had black troops and foreign correspondents actually accompanied them into battle.
The government's of Rhodesia, South Africa and Portugal under the Salazar dictatorship made the argument that they were not racist because black men were in their army. The present day supporters of the Confederacy use the same argument. The difference of course is that the Confederacy during the Civil War never made that claim nor did foreign correspondents verify it.
Leftyhunter
 
Interestingly enough the Ian Smith government in what was then Rhodesia made the same claim that they had more black volunteers then they did rifles to arm them.
That claim just like the claim that the Confederacy had more black volunteers then rifles to arm them was false.
Both the Confederacy and the Rhodesians
captured tons of small arms.
Colonel Freemantle mentions thousands of perfectly good Springfields rotting in the rain on the battle fields of Chancellorsville and the ORs mention thousands of British P53 Enfields being smuggled into Wilmington Nc. The Rhodesians could buy all they wanted from South Africa which produced their own rifles.
The difference between Rhodesia and the Confederacy is that the Rhodesians really had black troops and foreign correspondents actually accompanied them into battle.
The government's of Rhodesia, South Africa and Portugal under the Salazar dictatorship made the argument that they were not racist because black men were in their army. The present day supporters of the Confederacy use the same argument. The difference of course is that the Confederacy during the Civil War never made that claim nor did foreign correspondents verify it.
Leftyhunter

The referenced article was speculating on white volunteers. At that time there may have been a shortage of arms. As the Confederate government concentrated efforts on the units in the East, they gave Johnston small numbers of reinforcements and minimal amounts of arms and material

Later Bragg had more rifles than volunteers.
 
True.

Does make for an interesting contrast.

The obvious point of comparison would be how much coverage there was in the mainstream English language press within rebel-occupied territory of ethnicity within the ranks of the rebel armed forces; the parallels are strained, of course, when it comes to men of obvious African ancestry in the Civil War era South, but if - say - the non-Protestants of the rebel army, and those "whites" of obviously non-WASP antecedents, and the foreign-born, and rebel soldiers of obvious Native American and mixed heritage got covered, so to speak, one would expect the same to hold true for an even more "exotic" exhibition of military demographics...

Best,
 
Last edited:
When I first joined here, had my head taken off for using newspaper articles as definitive sources- you could do it when speaking of say, official reports since they've already been sourced elsewhere. It was a terrific learning experience, having finally gotten the courage to join here. So many obvious historian and no-nonsense researchers, may have taken my head off but also took the time ( as this thread does ), explaining why it's important.

" Black Confederates " tends to be an agenda ridden topic. You know- if there were black Confederate soldiers fighting to keep themselves enslaved how silly would be the entire war, ( despite asking everyone to believe an entire race transformed overnight from requiring rank imprisonment on plantations to begging for guns to please, please keep them there ). Makes it tough, maintaining an objective discussion based on the usual requirements we've come to expect.
 
When I first joined here, had my head taken off for using newspaper articles as definitive sources- you could do it when speaking of say, official reports since they've already been sourced elsewhere. It was a terrific learning experience, having finally gotten the courage to join here. So many obvious historian and no-nonsense researchers, may have taken my head off but also took the time ( as this thread does ), explaining why it's important.

" Black Confederates " tends to be an agenda ridden topic. You know- if there were black Confederate soldiers fighting to keep themselves enslaved how silly would be the entire war, ( despite asking everyone to believe an entire race transformed overnight from requiring rank imprisonment on plantations to begging for guns to please, please keep them there ). Makes it tough, maintaining an objective discussion based on the usual requirements we've come to expect.


One thing I have observed is the enthusiastic use of Northern newspapers to push the blacks in the Confederate army agenda, Not so much about using them to discuss the character of Confederates or the legitimacy of secession.
 
It was a little shocking, getting a grip on how newspapers functioned. They could print anything, which did cause problems since it was just as a litigious era as this one, maybe more for silly law suits ( hard to believe, I know ). Mark Twain is great source, anyone wishes to read about newspapers and fallout. Dueling was another recourse, of course, do not see anyone sending a challenge over this particular topic. Twain had a blast, printing awful things then waiting for a challenge.

Accuracy wasn't even attempted sometimes. You should see articles, North and South on both Lincoln and Davis much less generals of opposing side. It may be understandable but the thing is, how in blazes is it possible to believe articles on any topic pertaining to the war?
 
It was a little shocking, getting a grip on how newspapers functioned. They could print anything, which did cause problems since it was just as a litigious era as this one, maybe more for silly law suits ( hard to believe, I know ). Mark Twain is great source, anyone wishes to read about newspapers and fallout. Dueling was another recourse, of course, do not see anyone sending a challenge over this particular topic. Twain had a blast, printing awful things then waiting for a challenge.

Accuracy wasn't even attempted sometimes. You should see articles, North and South on both Lincoln and Davis much less generals of opposing side. It may be understandable but the thing is, how in blazes is it possible to believe articles on any topic pertaining to the war?

It depends on what you are looking for. It is a great sources for what newspaper editors were thinking, local events, fashion, what was being made and advertised for sale, propaganda, who was marrying who, and so on. Soft societal information. A good analyst could dig hard information if they worked at it. Unit commanders, battles, casualties and so on.

So far we can determine that Northern news paper editors had a vested interest in publishing blacks in Confederate Armies while Southern news paper editors did not. There are a number of motives suggested. Personally I find this to be a good argument against the Black Confederate ideology.
 
Anyone up to counting the number of newspaper articles in the Black men in the Confederate army" in the newspapers - 1861-1865 thread and reporting back on how many are from Union States and how many are from Confederate States?

The number of newspapers (individual articles as images or texts) for the first 20 pages, not all are named or located so some may be counted wrong. Reports, letters or post-war stuff etc. not included:

Union: 58
Confederate: 41
Unclear: 4
 
Back
Top