Negro Confederate Skirmishers at Chancellorsville

Robtweb1

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
2,801
Location
Grand Junction, TN
#61
It was not the confederacy that did that.
It was the state government since the unit was never a CSA unit, just state militia

And you are wrong.
When the CSA finally did allow for the recruitment of black men as soldiers in early 1865, it was in segregated units.
Prove it.
 

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

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,526
Location
Right here.
#62
"The War Department, however, acted quickly upon the new legislation, and General Orders No. 14 authorized the enlistment of free blacks as well as slaves whose masters signaled their approval by manumitting them before enlistment. No men still enslaved would be accepted as Confederate soldiers. Newspapers throughout the Confederacy immediately reported the widespread enlistment of thousands of black soldiers, but the actual results were far more modest. Only two units were ever created, both in Richmond. The first enrolled approximately sixty orderlies and nurses from Winder and Jackson Hospitals; the second, created at a formal recruiting center, never numbered more than ten recruits. The first company was hastily put into the trenches outside Richmond for a day in mid-March, but the unit canceled a parade scheduled for the end of the month due to the fact that the men lacked uniforms and rifles. Based on this, it is unclear how much fighting they could have done. The second unit was housed in a former prison and carefully watched by military police, suggesting that white Confederate officers did not trust these new black soldiers."

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Black_Confederates#start_entry
 

thomas aagaard

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,432
Location
Denmark
#63
You are the one who claimed they where integrated, when it should be common knowledge that they few units raised late in the war was segregated.

But when talking segregation/integrations we really should include the level.
The federal army was integrated down to the brigade level in some cases. (brigades with both white and colored regiments)
But not at the regimental level.

I remember reading in the OR about one white CSA regiment who wanted to recruit slaves into their regiment. (including slaves owned by members of the regiment) They where told they could do so, if the companies was white or black.
This was so late that it most likely never happened, but that would have given a regiment that was integrated. But the companies still segregated.
 

JeffBrooks

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
2,004
Location
Manor, TX
#64
If blacks were already fighting in the Confederate ranks, why did Cleburne's proposal in early 1864 to recruit black soldiers cause just a tremendous and angry uproar among his fellow officers, with President Davis sternly ordering all discussion of such a proposal to be immediately suppressed?
 

19thGeorgia

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,293
#65
If blacks were already fighting in the Confederate ranks, why did Cleburne's proposal in early 1864 to recruit black soldiers cause just a tremendous and angry uproar among his fellow officers, with President Davis sternly ordering all discussion of such a proposal to be immediately suppressed?
Servants occasionally taking part in battle and a limited number of free blacks enlisted in the army did not upset the status quo. Cleburne's proposal did (emancipation, etc).
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
28,602
Location
Long Island, NY
#66
If blacks were already fighting in the Confederate ranks, why did Cleburne's proposal in early 1864 to recruit black soldiers cause just a tremendous and angry uproar among his fellow officers, with President Davis sternly ordering all discussion of such a proposal to be immediately suppressed?
Also, of course, Cleburne makes no reference to blacks already fighting for the Confederacy. His proposal is a lawyerly document that musters reasonable arguments in favor of recruitment. If he knew of black troops in the Confederate ranks, he would have mentioned them. He certainly discusses the use of black soldiers by the Union.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,075
Location
Charlotte, NC
#67
Every man enlisted into the CS army had to be examined by a surgeon and approved by him. The man then had to be enlisted by an officer, who was usually named in the enlistment records. To believe a black was truly enlisted and made part of the army, you would have to believe that 2 different officers were willing to ignore regulations and put their names on documents in violation of the regulations. I guess it is possible once or twice, but thousands of men?

Regulations were taken seriously by Richmond. Quartermasters, Commissary officers and Paymasters were all called to account for paying someone incorrectly (ie not in accordance with regulations). There are scores of these examples in the records. So now you have to have three more levels of officers who were willing to violate regulations to keep your black soldiers in the army.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,195
Location
South Carolina
#68
Every man enlisted into the CS army had to be examined by a surgeon and approved by him. The man then had to be enlisted by an officer, who was usually named in the enlistment records. To believe a black was truly enlisted and made part of the army, you would have to believe that 2 different officers were willing to ignore regulations and put their names on documents in violation of the regulations. I guess it is possible once or twice, but thousands of men?

Regulations were taken seriously by Richmond. Quartermasters, Commissary officers and Paymasters were all called to account for paying someone incorrectly (ie not in accordance with regulations). There are scores of these examples in the records. So now you have to have three more levels of officers who were willing to violate regulations to keep your black soldiers in the army.
There were a number of free black men enlisted in the Confederate army. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/black-confederate-count.142783/

Many were cooks and teamsters. Some are listed as Private, some are Pvt. on some muster rolls, cook or teamster on others. So black men were in fact enlisted in the Confederate army. Were some of them in combat? You can't get that information from CSRs.

But it's certainly possible. Take a look at my latest posting in the newspaper thread: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/bl...s-said-1861-1865.129911/page-143#post-1983682
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,176
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#69
You are the one who claimed they where integrated, when it should be common knowledge that they few units raised late in the war was segregated.

But when talking segregation/integrations we really should include the level.
The federal army was integrated down to the brigade level in some cases. (brigades with both white and colored regiments)
But not at the regimental level.

I remember reading in the OR about one white CSA regiment who wanted to recruit slaves into their regiment. (including slaves owned by members of the regiment) They where told they could do so, if the companies was white or black.
This was so late that it most likely never happened, but that would have given a regiment that was integrated. But the companies still segregated.
Things are complicated by the definition of black. A white appearing mulatto might be found in the ranks with white men. Is a near white appearing mulatto a 'black Confederate'. If so some ranks were integrated and if not, not. One of the fun things about the black confederate discussion.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,176
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#72
You are the one who claimed they where integrated, when it should be common knowledge that they few units raised late in the war was segregated.

But when talking segregation/integrations we really should include the level.
The federal army was integrated down to the brigade level in some cases. (brigades with both white and colored regiments)
But not at the regimental level.

I remember reading in the OR about one white CSA regiment who wanted to recruit slaves into their regiment. (including slaves owned by members of the regiment) They where told they could do so, if the companies was white or black.
This was so late that it most likely never happened, but that would have given a regiment that was integrated. But the companies still segregated.
It also depends on the definition of black. Is a white-appearing mulatto a 'black' if so some CSA companies were integrated, if not not. Certainly not officially, but in a million man army strange things will happen.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,176
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#73
Every man enlisted into the CS army had to be examined by a surgeon and approved by him. The man then had to be enlisted by an officer, who was usually named in the enlistment records. To believe a black was truly enlisted and made part of the army, you would have to believe that 2 different officers were willing to ignore regulations and put their names on documents in violation of the regulations. I guess it is possible once or twice, but thousands of men?

Regulations were taken seriously by Richmond. Quartermasters, Commissary officers and Paymasters were all called to account for paying someone incorrectly (ie not in accordance with regulations). There are scores of these examples in the records. So now you have to have three more levels of officers who were willing to violate regulations to keep your black soldiers in the army.
I have seen a handful, note the term handful of cases where all that happened and 'black' men were removed from the CSA Army and sent home. OTOH this indicates that while some commanders might turn a blind eye, later commanders would take notice and act. We have some evidence of 165 blacks(black appearing or not) with the rank of private in the CSA army. But the CSA army gave the rank of private to noncombatants to simplify paperwork.
 

DaveBrt

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
2,075
Location
Charlotte, NC
#74
There were a number of free black men enlisted in the Confederate army. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/black-confederate-count.142783/

Many were cooks and teamsters. Some are listed as Private, some are Pvt. on some muster rolls, cook or teamster on others. So black men were in fact enlisted in the Confederate army. Were some of them in combat? You can't get that information from CSRs.

But it's certainly possible. Take a look at my latest posting in the newspaper thread: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/bl...s-said-1861-1865.129911/page-143#post-1983682
Those men were not enlisted as soldiers, but as musicians, teamsters, cooks etc -- about which there is no argument. The question is about soldiers -- fighting men -- and they were not enlisted.
 

19thGeorgia

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
2,293
#75
Every man enlisted into the CS army had to be examined by a surgeon and approved by him. The man then had to be enlisted by an officer, who was usually named in the enlistment records. To believe a black was truly enlisted and made part of the army, you would have to believe that 2 different officers were willing to ignore regulations and put their names on documents in violation of the regulations. I guess it is possible once or twice, but thousands of men?

Regulations were taken seriously by Richmond. Quartermasters, Commissary officers and Paymasters were all called to account for paying someone incorrectly (ie not in accordance with regulations). There are scores of these examples in the records. So now you have to have three more levels of officers who were willing to violate regulations to keep your black soldiers in the army.
Will Burgis ("free man of color") was enlisted by A. B. Hardcastle.

BurgisWill.jpg




Who was A. B. Hardcastle?

A mustering officer of the Confederate army. It was Hardcastle who filled out the roll and described him as a "free man of color."

Hardcastle.jpg
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,176
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#76
There were a number of free black men enlisted in the Confederate army. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/black-confederate-count.142783/

Many were cooks and teamsters. Some are listed as Private, some are Pvt. on some muster rolls, cook or teamster on others. So black men were in fact enlisted in the Confederate army. Were some of them in combat? You can't get that information from CSRs.

But it's certainly possible. Take a look at my latest posting in the newspaper thread: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/bl...s-said-1861-1865.129911/page-143#post-1983682
Which takes us into the very slippery slope of what is a "black" Confederate. Some folks want photographic evidence of a Nubian black in gray shooing a Union soldier, some will take a near white mulatto flipping pancakes.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,176
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#78
Those men were not enlisted as soldiers, but as musicians, teamsters, cooks etc -- about which there is no argument. The question is about soldiers -- fighting men -- and they were not enlisted.
Since when are black confederates limited to combatants, especially when record wise we cannot tell.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,195
Location
South Carolina
#79
This report by Col. Allenbach made me think of a phrase I've often seen variations of in reference to black Confederates, found here: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/black-confederates

"To be specific, in the “Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,” a collection of military records from both sides which spans more than 50 volumes and more than 50,000 pages, there are a total of seven Union eyewitness reports of black Confederates. Three of these reports mention black men shooting at Union soldiers, one report mentions capturing a handful of armed black men along with some soldiers, and the other three reports mention seeing unarmed black laborers. There is no record of Union soldiers encountering an all-black line of battle or anything close to it. "​

However, is that assertion not contradicted by the portion of the report quoted in the OP, when he encountered the enemy skirmish line? I don't know how many men were in this line, but there had to be enough to help the artillery stop two regiments of men. As for the composition, note that the colonel doesn't say "some" were negroes, he says "the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes." That sounds like something "close to" an all-black line of battle to me.

"In obedience to these orders, at about 11 o'clock I advanced with these two regiments forward through the wood, under a severe fire of shell, grape, and canister. I encountered their skirmishers when near the farther edge of the wood. Allow me to state that the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes. Slight skirmishing going on until retiring. "​
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,176
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#80
This report by Col. Allenbach made me think of a phrase I've often seen variations of in reference to black Confederates, found here: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/black-confederates

"To be specific, in the “Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,” a collection of military records from both sides which spans more than 50 volumes and more than 50,000 pages, there are a total of seven Union eyewitness reports of black Confederates. Three of these reports mention black men shooting at Union soldiers, one report mentions capturing a handful of armed black men along with some soldiers, and the other three reports mention seeing unarmed black laborers. There is no record of Union soldiers encountering an all-black line of battle or anything close to it. "​

However, is that assertion not contradicted by the portion of the report quoted in the OP, when he encountered the enemy skirmish line? I don't know how many men were in this line, but there had to be enough to help the artillery stop two regiments of men. As for the composition, note that the colonel doesn't say "some" were negroes, he says "the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes." That sounds like something "close to" an all-black line of battle to me.

"In obedience to these orders, at about 11 o'clock I advanced with these two regiments forward through the wood, under a severe fire of shell, grape, and canister. I encountered their skirmishers when near the farther edge of the wood. Allow me to state that the skirmishers of the enemy were negroes. Slight skirmishing going on until retiring. "​
Skirmishers are not a line of battle.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/videos/infantry-tactics-during-civil-war
The other issue is how many were there. Were there all negros?

I suspect the criteria was carefully composed. Eyewitness, line of battle all-black are tangible terms. The passage under consideration Fails 2 or all 3 depending on if skirmishers of the enemy were negroes is a mixed group or not.
 



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