T or F? Official Records: No Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
This is from a Civil War Trust article titled Black Confederates: Truth and Legend:

This is not to say that no black man ever fired a gun for the Confederacy. 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.

In those same Official Records, no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common.

The non-existence of black combat units is further indicated by the records of debates in the Confederate Congress over the issue of black enlistment. The idea was repeatedly rejected until, on March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles, although with the provision “that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners,” i.e. that black soldiers would still be slaves.​

Is this true - that no Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit in the Official Records? Has anyone ever encountered such in their reading of the Records? I'm looking for cases where the black men involved are clearly soldiers, NOT servants or cooks. Please give the name of the unit if it appears in the Records.

Just for the sake of discussion, the case of the Louisiana Native Guards or state militia units can be included in this thread. They would not be considered Confederate army units and probably would not have been counted as soldiers as noted in the Civil War Trust article. But they could conceivably operate under a Confederate officer.

But please do not include, for example, a "regiment" of laborers. The Civil War Trust is specifically referring to soldiers, not laborers. We do know that the CSA made heavy use of black labor during the war, that is not at issue.

- Alan
 
Back
Top