Lack of Confederate OR accounts of blacks in the ranks.

Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Texas
#1
Why is that?

Why do we not see accounts of blacks/slaves in the ranks of Confederate Official Records? We have a long thread of newspaper accounts, but I have found nothing in the Confederate Official Records of such, throughout the length of the war?
Blacks/slaves were there, but not mentioned on the reports of Confederate Officers, why?

Kevin Dally
 
Last edited:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

archieclement

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,146
Location
mo
#2
If a unit wasn't segregated why would you? Edited. You do hear of Indians but its generally in the units name same as colored is in USCT, the units were primarily Indian as USCT was primarily black, they were segregated units.

If a regt of 800 men was 750 white for example, why would one denote 50 weren't in a OR of the units action? The only men generally singled out in OR reports are officers. Do you think there was a black officer corps? Thats news to me if you do.

As you specificly included slaves, generally cooks, butlers, and teamsters aren't in most battle reports even on Union side.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Texas
#5
If a unit wasn't segregated why would you? Edited. You do hear of Indians but its generally in the units name same as colored is in USCT, the units were primarily Indian as USCT was primarily black, they were segregated units.

If a regt of 800 men was 750 white for example, why would one denote 50 weren't in a OR of the units action? The only men generally singled out in OR reports are officers. Do you think there was a black officer corps? Thats news to me if you do.

As you specificly included slaves, generally cooks, butlers, and teamsters aren't in most battle reports even on Union side.
People are all afire today on the "Black Confederate Soldier", jump thru hoops to find any info they can use. But I find it real interesting that I have found none in the Confederate OR's, or in the diaries of Confederate Soldiers written DURING the war.

If BCS were so important, so common, why is the Confederate Military so MUM about them?

Kevin Dally
 

archieclement

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,146
Location
mo
#6
Edited. Generally minorities aren't mentioned especially, nor do the non glamorous support services get mentioned often......however both armies had cooks, teamsters, aides, ect. Even if they dont gush over the cook or muleskinner in the official reports...…….they didnt generally move on empty stomachs and driverless supply wagons however.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
713
Location
Coffeeville, TX
#7
I would say its because outside of a few State Militia units, and the C.S.N., Blacks weren't allowed to enlist in the Confederate military. But that doesn't mean there weren't Blacks in Confederate uniform, in Texas there was a labor bureau filled with slaves, uniformed by the Confederate government, building fortifications and such in uniforms made for them at the Houston Depot. As for Blacks in the field, armed and equipped as soldiers, I'd say its because through any number of ways they were with the Army, and occasionally put to work as pickets, guarding prisoners and such by either their masters, or by officers above their masters using all the slaves in camp for some purpose, or they were part of a group of slaves attached to the Army "on loan" and simply ended up armed, and someone saw them and assumed they were enlisted personnel, because they looked the part, and in some cases performed the part.

Now is that to say legions of loyal Blacks were loyally serving? No. But does that say they all were apart of it against their will? Not really, post-war photos of Black attending Confederate reunions seem to show some were evidently proud of their service. It all comes down to the individual views and experiences on that count.

The Confederacy officially didn't allow Blacks in the Army till the end of the War, but through many ways Blacks ended up doing soldier-like duties in uniforms, as laborers and servants, and apparently more than a few ended up on the battlefield or near it looking the part as soldiers, and it seems a lot of them were proud of it later in life, so it can be said Black Confederate "soldiers" existed, even if they weren't officially soldiers.
 

gary

Captain
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
6,245
#8
Simple reason why Confederate accounts are scarce. Manliness. To admit that a black could fight as well as a white diminishes the southern white's manliness and admits that he alone could not defend his home. We may pooh pooh that notion today (we have the advantage of looking back on the American Revolution where Rhode Island fielded a regiment largely composed of black soldiers, the accomplishments of the USCT or 54th Mass, 9th &10th Cav and 24/25th Infantry during the post Civil War era, Edited. etc.), but the values and views of the Victorian Era was a lot different from ours.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,574
Location
Texas
#9
Simple reason why Confederate accounts are scarce. Manliness. To admit that a black could fight as well as a white diminishes the southern white's manliness and admits that he alone could not defend his home. We may pooh pooh that notion today (we have the advantage of looking back on the American Revolution where Rhode Island fielded a regiment largely composed of black soldiers, the accomplishments of the USCT or 54th Mass, 9th &10th Cav and 24/25th Infantry during the post Civil War era, Harlem Hellfighters of WW II, etc.), but the values and views of the Victorian Era was a lot different from ours.
I find it interesting that Cleburne's "proposal" seems to say that they were not capable of doing just that.

Kevin Dally
 

E_just_E

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
5,935
Location
Center Valley, PA
#12
If something is not mentioned it does not mean that it did not exist, only that the people who were doing the mentioning did not find it noteworthy. Especially in a place like an Official Report that is used for a specific purpose, to officially report events that took place involving a particular military unit.

The fact that ORs do not mention facial hair or amputees, does not mean that everyone was clean shaved and had both his arms and/or legs.
 

uaskme

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,531
#13
The Confederates didn’t have Official Uniforms. They weren’t as disciplined as the Federals. Didn’t have as extensive record keeping. At the end of the War, many had no shoes or much else a regular Army would have. How difficult would it be to have un official this or that? How great a need did they have for anyone who could hold a musket?

People don’t seem to understand the relationship between the Negro and the Indian. They were enslaved together for 300 years. Many Indian tribes simply vanished. Some tribes who had few left were consumed by other tribes or into the Negro Race. Some of these people wouldn’t have been visually different. Thomas’s Legion had 1k Cherokees. Any colored person, Negro, Native, Caribbean would of been in the USCT. Some dark Europeans I would assume were in the USCT. I just don’t thing the Confederates were that concerned with Fact Checking by 63. There is no doubt the Lower South Planters who were Politically dominate didn’t want their property destroyed, would of been against negro soldiers. No doubt it was the biggest mistake the Confederacy made was not using them and from the get go. It would of scared The Bee Gees out of the Yankees.
 

thomas aagaard

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,423
Location
Denmark
#14
The Confederates didn’t have Official Uniforms. They weren’t as disciplined as the Federals. Didn’t have as extensive record keeping. At the end of the War, many had no shoes or much else a regular Army would have. How difficult would it be to have un official this or that? How great a need did they have for anyone who could hold a musket?.
Myths and more myths.
Bragg's army was arguably the strongest disciplined army union or csa.
By Summer 1862 their supply system was working as it should... including getting shoes. And importing huge quantities of uniforms form the UK. That some units marched into Maryland in rags, was not because the uniforms was not in storage, but because Lee was not willing to wast a few weeks reequipping his army. (and you can find the same issue with union units... with uniforms falling about and with no shoes) Not until early 1865 did the CSA supply system stop working.

And the CSA armies did their best to follow the army regulations, including all the paperwork.
We can thank CSA General Cooper For saving the CSA war department archives and turning them over to the Federal government.
(and there is plenty of CSA paperwork i the OR)

That we don't have a lot of the csa paperwork today, is because some of it was lost /destroyed at the end of the war...
not because it was not made during the war.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
9,906
#15
I do not find it at all surprising that no mention of Blacks in the rebel ORs. ORs were intended to focus on military operations and battles. The only reason there is mention of Black skirmishers in Colonel Peter H. Allabach's oft-quoted OR is that although he found it 'off-topic' he felt it was so unusual: "Allow me to state that the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes." (emphasis added).
<"No. 203: Report of Colonel Peter H. Allabach, One hundred thirty-first Pennsylvania Infantry, commanding Second Brigade. The War of the Rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. Ser.1: Vol. 25: Pt. 1: Reports. United States. " (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1889), pp. 555-556.>

 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,421
#16
Why is that?

Why do we not see accounts of blacks/slaves in the ranks of Confederate Official Records? We have a long thread of newspaper accounts, but I have found nothing in the Confederate Official Records of such, throughout the length of the war?
Blacks/slaves were there, but not mentioned on the reports of Confederate Officers, why?

Kevin Dally
Who do you think wrote those OR’s?
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top