Does The Uniform Make Him A CS Soldier????

...BTW, here's the info from the muster-in roll of Company I. Note the certificate of the Confederate mustering officer ("accepted them into the service of the Confederate States")-

I see that. Good point. We can see though that it is the "copyist" who has "signed" the Confederate mustering officer's name and not the Confederate mustering officer himself (being identical handwriting to the rest of the form), but even as a mere copy it stands as a record of that officer having accepted an enlistment, if not a negro enlistment in this specific case.

If muster cards specifying negro enlistment are common, that would be a "proof" that blacks were regularly enlisted into CS service despite the clear order from Richmond not to do so (til the last few days of the war). Makes one wonder: were those hundreds of negro enlistments ever registered at CS headquarters in Richmond? ...as they would have if official. Good question.

Anyway, if official CS enlistments of blacks were common, that would support the post-war proclivity of Confederate Apologists to push the "Black Confederate" thing, hoping in turn that it therefore supports the Lost Cause precept that the war wasn't over slavery (i.e."Our slaves themselves were a-volunteerin' to be fightin' the Yankees!).
 
Last edited:
I can't take the credit. "Texas Confederate Images" on FB had it labeled as possibly him in the photo. It wasn't hard to pick just who.

But no he's not listed in it.
The possibility of that being Dowling in that picture is still there. The probabilitily of it just went out the window though. From what I just read that photo of Gen. Slaughter and his staff was taken in Alabama in either 1862 or 1863. Pretty sure Dowling was still a jr. lieutenant in Texas at that time.
 
The possibility of that being Dowling in that picture is still there. The probabilitily of it just went out the window though. From what I just read that photo of Gen. Slaughter and his staff was taken in Alabama in either 1862 or 1863. Pretty sure Dowling was still a jr. lieutenant in Texas at that time.

I don't know the book, but I have a feelin it could be Galveston. The three servants in the background may be the key. Their jackets, by the tint, and what little clarity there is, look like their jackets are made of imported British blue-gray kersey, (darker than American "cadet gray") something unavailable in the South, or rather Confederacy, till mid-1863, and not in Alabama till late 63 with it being more so in 1864. The Brit kersey was available, mid-1863 and the most common uniform material in Texas, and for Texas troops elsewhere in the Trans-Mississippi, by late 1863, early 1864.

Also their uniform jacket look to fit the description of un-trimmed Houston Depot jackets.

You may be right though, I'm just saying it could be Galveston based on the uniform observation. It's not definitive, but its a reasonable thing to see. After all, not all books are a hundred percent accurate.
 
The book " The Civil War and Revolution on the Rio Grande" by Jerry Thompson is where I saw that picture.Was Slaughter in Alabama in 1862 or 1863?
 
Last edited:
I have no idea.....

A quick search shows he transferred to Texas in April 1863, so if my hunch is correct they're in Galveston. One thing I have to note, is many people look at many late war Trans-Mississippi Confederate images and declare them false information, fake, or were taken elsewhere because the uniforms are so "neat" something I've seen with many images, and this happens because everyone is adamant that everyone from officers to enlisted men were in rags, and there was no ability to take photographs in the Trans-Mississippi, (this is an issue and argument I've encountered more times than I can count), even though that mind-set has been debunked and put into the proper context by modern research by great uniform researchers like Fred Adolphus.

Perhaps this is one of those occurrences? Now I got to find out dang it!
 
Okay, okay... For fun I ask to see if anyone recognizes the famous man in the photo I posted, and all I get is recognition of a not very famous General, and we discover James N. is either a time-traveler or is immortal who's been around for at least 200 years and ages well!

I was referring to the officer standing on the far-right, and for my fellow Texans if y'all don't recognize who he might be soon I shall be very disappointed. Here's a hint as to who it might be, (remarkable resemblance)

View attachment 330661
Was the Negro in the picture a servant ,slave,or did he just tag along with the gentlemen?
 
Was the Negro in the picture a servant ,slave,or did he just tag along with the gentlemen?

Regardless, such a person will be claimed as a "Black Confederate" by Confederate apologists to promote the current Lost Cause precept that the Civil War wasn't about slavery* ( i.e."see here ole' son, even our slaves was a-fightin' fer the cause").


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* to note that the original Lost Cause wasn't concerned about that, but instead boldly proclaimed to be proud of the slave system. Current Lost Cause has instead moved into the precept that the CW wasn't over slavery, hoping to retain a semblance of moral dignity in modern popular society. In other words, LCs today can't anymore boldly proclaim be proud of slavery, it would blow their gig.
 
Last edited:
* to note that the original Lost Cause wasn't concerned about that, but instead boldly proclaimed to be proud of the slave system. Current Lost Cause has instead moved into the precept that the CW wasn't over slavery, hoping to retain a semblance of moral dignity in modern popular society. In other words, LCs today can't anymore boldly proclaim be proud of slavery, it would blow their gig.
This is my main gripe about the whole Black Confederate claim - although I also believe there likely were a relative handful of 'genu-wine' BC's for one reason or another. I don't see why modern Southerners can't simply be proud of the very real hardships and accomplishments of their ancestors without having to be SO defensive about it.
 
…I don't see why modern Southerners can't simply be proud of the very real hardships and accomplishments of their ancestors without having to be SO defensive about it...

actually many modern Southerners are proud of their ancestors yet are NOT at all SO defensive of it. Let's not abandon the moniker "Southerners" to heritage Confederates.

Being a Southerner means so much more than merely having white ancestors that spent a few miserable years as Confederates. There's a much longer pre-, during-, and post-war Southern history that was lived by thousands of non-Confederate whites and blacks who also legitimately own the moniker "Southerners."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top