Creole Confererates?

Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Location
Kingsport, Tennessee
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/co...ck-and-mulatto-men.142783/page-9#post-1762237
With the link to his Find-A-Grave page provided, one can view photos of Confederate Veteran, William C. Revels, (3 times wounded) & a grandson, his wife, Carolina, (who was approved for a widow's pension), his sons, David & James, and his grand-daughter, Lillie. Obviously, none of the family were of a light enough complexion to pass for white.
 
Last edited:

James N.

Colonel
Forum Host
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
East Texas
I'm fairly sure there were Creole men in the New Orleans area that were in the Confederacy. I am married to a Creole girl. (I'm of 75% Italian and 25% Irish decent) She has very light skin although many in her family are very dark with African type hair. Her father who was dark was from Diamond Louisiana. I was told that the Barthelemy's in that area were black and the Bartholomew's are white! I looked for her last name (which is Bartholomew) in a book of Louisiana Confederate soldiers. There was one listing of a Confederate soldier named Bartholomew who was described as dark complected. My wife's sister had her DNA test come back as 36% African. I often wonder why the Doctor signed the first Bartholomew's birth certificate white. It Was said that General Beauregard was Creole. P.S. Creole girls are gorgeous!
DO keep in mind that the unfortunate word CREOLE you chose for your title has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, but everything to do with national origin: The word Creole describes someone of Latin - in this particular case French and/or Spanish - descent who happened not to have been of European birth but was born in the New World. (By this definition, General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard was indeed a Creole.) Due to the prevailing attitudes of the time they *might* also have been of mixed race, but this had nothing to do with them being Creoles. I believe a period term like Mulatto would be more in keeping with what you're attempting to describe.
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
With the link to his Find-A-Grave page provided, one can view photos of Confederate Veteran, William C. Revels, (3 times wounded) & a grandson, his wife, Carolina, (who was approved for a widow's pension), his sons, David & James, and his grand-daughter, Lillie. Obviously, none of the family were of a light enough complexion to pass for white.
Is this the one of Revels and grandson?

1581110008282.png
 

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
The first time we hear this "official" policy is November 1863 (Seddon).

1861 Confederate Army Regulations, recruiting, section 1299:

"Any free white male person above the age of eighteen and under thirty five years, being at least five feet four and a half inches high, effective, able bodied, sober, free from disease, of good character and habits, and with a competent knowledge of the English language may be enlisted."

Can we stop the nonsense already?

I've really enjoyed reading the research here about the quirky exceptions during the war (war makes strange bedfellows).
But, enough.
Neither The USA not the CSA originally wanted black soldiers.
Then midway through, the USA did.
Until 2 months before the end, the CSA never did.
Enough.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
1861 Confederate Army Regulations, recruiting, section 1299:

"Any free white male person above the age of eighteen and under thirty five years, being at least five feet four and a half inches high, effective, able bodied, sober, free from disease, of good character and habits, and with a competent knowledge of the English language may be enlisted."
CSA regulations weren't published and available until the Summer of 1861. What regulations did they use prior to that date?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Location
Kingsport, Tennessee
Until 2 months before the end, the CSA never did.
Enough.

Never????

"Passed at the First Session of the First Confederate Congress; 1862: CHAP. LXIV.–A Bill [An Act] for the enlistment of Cooks in the Army. April 21, 1862. Enlistment of Cooks in the Army. Their duties. The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That hereafter it shall be duty of the Captain or Commanding Officer of his company to enlist four Cooks for the use of his company, whose duty it shall be to cook for such company–taking charge of the supplies, utensils and other things furnished therefor, and safely keep the same, subject to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the War Department or the Colonel of the Regiment to which such company may be attached: May be white or black, free or slave persons. Proviso. Pay and allowances. [SEC. 2.] Be it further enacted, That the Cooks so directed to be enlisted, may be white or black, free or slave persons; Provided, however, That no slave shall be so enlisted, without the written consent of his owner. And such Cooks shall be enlisted as such only, and put on the muster-roll and paid at the time and place the company may or shall be paid off, twenty dollars per month to the Chief or Head Cook, Page 49 and fifteen dollars per month for each of the Assistant Cooks, together with the same allowance for clothing, or the same commutation therefor that may be allowed to the rank and file of the company. ....................................................................................................................

CHAP. XXIX.–An Act for the payment of musicians in the army not regularly enlisted. April 15, 1862. Pay of colored persons employed as musicians. Proviso. The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That whenever colored persons are employed as musicians in any Regiment or Company, they shall be entitled to the same pay now allowed by law to musicians regularly enlisted: Provided, That no such persons shall be so employed except by the consent of the commanding officer of the Brigade to which said Regiments or Companies may belong.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Never????

"Passed at the First Session of the First Confederate Congress; 1862: CHAP. LXIV.–A Bill [An Act] for the enlistment of Cooks in the Army. April 21, 1862. Enlistment of Cooks in the Army. Their duties. The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That hereafter it shall be duty of the Captain or Commanding Officer of his company to enlist four Cooks for the use of his company, whose duty it shall be to cook for such company–taking charge of the supplies, utensils and other things furnished therefor, and safely keep the same, subject to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the War Department or the Colonel of the Regiment to which such company may be attached: May be white or black, free or slave persons. Proviso. Pay and allowances. [SEC. 2.] Be it further enacted, That the Cooks so directed to be enlisted, may be white or black, free or slave persons; Provided, however, That no slave shall be so enlisted, without the written consent of his owner. And such Cooks shall be enlisted as such only, and put on the muster-roll and paid at the time and place the company may or shall be paid off, twenty dollars per month to the Chief or Head Cook, Page 49 and fifteen dollars per month for each of the Assistant Cooks, together with the same allowance for clothing, or the same commutation therefor that may be allowed to the rank and file of the company. ....................................................................................................................

CHAP. XXIX.–An Act for the payment of musicians in the army not regularly enlisted. April 15, 1862. Pay of colored persons employed as musicians. Proviso. The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That whenever colored persons are employed as musicians in any Regiment or Company, they shall be entitled to the same pay now allowed by law to musicians regularly enlisted: Provided, That no such persons shall be so employed except by the consent of the commanding officer of the Brigade to which said Regiments or Companies may belong.

@east tennessee roots ,

I see "cooks" and "musicians", but nowhere do I see the term "soldier."

I also note that the master must consent for the enlistment of a "slave" cook and that the commanding officer must consent tp "such persons" being employed as musicians.

By the language employed by the Chapter you give, I see no conflict @Dead Parrott 's post #46 and the CSA regulation to enlist only free "white" male persons as soldiers.

Unionblue
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Location
Kingsport, Tennessee
I see "cooks" and "musicians", but nowhere do I see the term "soldier."

You and I could have a "silly" back and forth all day about if "support troops" Cooks, Musicians, Teamsters, etc were soldiers or not. I have no time or interest for such a discussion. I was responding to the assertion that persons of color were never "enlisted until the last 2 weeks of the war." It makes absolutely no difference to me if @Dead Parrott, or you, or anyone else, believes they were solders. It makes no difference if there were requirements to be met. The fact remains they were enlisted (and paid equally with white cooks, musicians, and teamsters if I read correctly) That seems to me a long way from "never".
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
You and I could have a "silly" back and forth all day about if "support troops" Cooks, Musicians, Teamsters, etc were soldiers or not. I have no time or interest for such a discussion. I was responding to the assertion that persons of color were never "enlisted until the last 2 weeks of the war." It makes absolutely no difference to me if @Dead Parrott, or you, or anyone else, believes they were solders. It makes no difference if there were requirements to be met. The fact remains they were enlisted (and paid equally with white cooks, musicians, and teamsters if I read correctly) That seems to me a long way from "never".

@east tennessee roots ,

And I said there was no conflict between your assertion and @Dead Parrott 's point on who could actually enlist as a Confederate soldier per the CSA government itself.

You correctly showed that blacks were enlisted in two occupations.

I do not disagree. I merely point out the differences between the two statements.
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
1861 Confederate Army Regulations, recruiting, section 1299:

"Any free white male person above the age of eighteen and under thirty five years, being at least five feet four and a half inches high, effective, able bodied, sober, free from disease, of good character and habits, and with a competent knowledge of the English language may be enlisted."

Can we stop the nonsense already?

I've really enjoyed reading the research here about the quirky exceptions during the war (war makes strange bedfellows).
But, enough.
Neither The USA not the CSA originally wanted black soldiers.
Then midway through, the USA did.
Until 2 months before the end, the CSA never did.
Enough.

IF a significant number of Confederate Black Combat Soldiers served in the Confederate army during the War as some people want to suggest, the only logical conclusion is that the Confederacy was incredibly inept and dysfunctional at enforcing their own rules in their army and allowed a significant number of black and mixed race Southerners to slip in their army's ranks.

I mean why did Gen. Patrick Cleburne and others bother about petitioning to Richmond over the employment of black soldiers? Didn't they know they were allowed to recruit blacks as combatants anyway? Maybe some members should build a time-machine and go back in the era to lecture Gen. Cleburne on that subject.
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
...or some of the officers cared less about the color line than the politicians.

Again, that assertion leads to the same conclusion. The Confederacy was incredibly inept and dysfunctional at enforcing their rules since those "some officers" were Confederates who were supposed to abide by & enforce the rules set by the Confederacy. It even gets worse, if it was an widespread practice.

However, the very incident that Gen. Cleburne and others tried to seek an approval from Richmond over this issue proves that even some officers were open to an idea of arming blacks as combat soldiers cared about the opinion of politicians.
 
Top