Uncivil Podcast: The Story of Silas Chandler

Right.

...unless he was enlisted.

Are you saying that a name on a muster roll is evidence that a person has enlisted and is a Confederate soldier? The reason I ask, is because in Vietnam for example, my unit as others, carried on our roster former enemy soldiers that had surrendered under a program known as "Chieu Hoi" and turned around worked for us as a "Hoi Chanh" or a scout in the field with us. Some of these Hoi Chanhs would even be awarded U.S. military awards such as the Bronze Star, yet they were not considered United States soldiers. Point being, the fact that a name is on a roster or muster roll as a cook, teamster or whatever, does not necessarily mean he was a Confederate soldier or in my time with the Army, a United States soldier.
 
Are you saying that a name on a muster roll is evidence that a person has enlisted and is a Confederate soldier? The reason I ask, is because in Vietnam for example, my unit as others, carried on our roster former enemy soldiers that had surrendered under a program known as "Chieu Hoi" and turned around worked for us as a "Hoi Chanh" or a scout in the field with us. Some of these Hoi Chanhs would even be awarded U.S. military awards such as the Bronze Star, yet they were not considered United States soldiers. Point being, the fact that a name is on a roster or muster roll as a cook, teamster or whatever, does not necessarily mean he was a Confederate soldier or in my time with the Army, a United States soldier.
Apples and oranges?

But none of the men I found fit your description - enemy soldiers that surrendered.

I haven't found anything on the rolls that support the contention- "these aren't real soldiers."
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that a name on a muster roll is evidence that a person has enlisted and is a Confederate soldier? The reason I ask, is because in Vietnam for example, my unit as others, carried on our roster former enemy soldiers that had surrendered under a program known as "Chieu Hoi" and turned around worked for us as a "Hoi Chanh" or a scout in the field with us. Some of these Hoi Chanhs would even be awarded U.S. military awards such as the Bronze Star, yet they were not considered United States soldiers. Point being, the fact that a name is on a roster or muster roll as a cook, teamster or whatever, does not necessarily mean he was a Confederate soldier or in my time with the Army, a United States soldier.
That is new to me. However if paid, rewarded, fight with, risk death with is not a member of an army, then what is? Arguing over what is a proper CSA soldier is great sport around here. Hundreds of posts about it. One day I got tried of it and decided to find some sort of black confederates to sample. I chose the rank of private at some point in some official document. The nice thing about that it is simple. So far finding documented privates is difficult, assuming privates are liable to combat regardless of normal duties, especially in the CSA army where chaplains often fought in the ranks has found few.

In this case, no rank of private=no soldier=no Black Confederate Combatant. If a Black Confederate is something else then that needs to be defined.
 
Apples and oranges?

But none of the men I found fit your description - enemy soldiers that surrendered.

That wasn't my point. The mere listing of a name on a roster or muster roll as anything other that a military graded person is not an indication that he was a soldier in that nation's military, be it Confederate or United States.
 
That is new to me. However if paid, rewarded, fight with, risk death with is not a member of an army, then what is? Arguing over what is a proper CSA soldier is great sport around here. Hundreds of posts about it. One day I got tried of it and decided to find some sort of black confederates to sample. I chose the rank of private at some point in some official document. The nice thing about that it is simple. So far finding documented privates is difficult, assuming privates are liable to combat regardless of normal duties, especially in the CSA army where chaplains often fought in the ranks has found few.

In this case, no rank of private=no soldier=no Black Confederate Combatant. If a Black Confederate is something else then that needs to be defined.

My point with the Hoi Chanh who was carried on a U.S. army roster as a Hoi Chanh, was not that he wasn't a soldier because he most certainly was, but rather he was not an American or United States soldier.
 
That wasn't my point. The mere listing of a name on a roster or muster roll as anything other that a military graded person is not an indication that he was a soldier in that nation's military, be it Confederate or United States.
Remark added to previous post- I haven't found anything on the rolls that support the contention- "these aren't real soldiers."
 
I've never read or heard of a black person objecting to the phrase "War for Southern Independence."

I would suppose that some unruly slaves were put in chains as punishment for a crime or some other offense. But of all the photos and paintings of slaves, I have never seen one where the slaves were in chains.
How many volunteered? There's a lot of evidence that a large segment of that 180k did not volunteer.
Edited by Moderator.
Whether or not you are personally aware of a black person objecting to the phrase, "War for Southern Independence," it is clear that the phrase represents the interests of all southerners as some kind of undifferentiated monolith. The rebellion was fought for the expressed and explicit purpose of preserving the institution of slavery and the possibility of its expansion. This was the very antithesis of "independence" for four million southern slaves. Furthermore, many southern whites also opposed the rebellion for a variety of reasons.

As for the use of chains in southern slavery, Edward Baptist, in his excellent book on the economics of southern slavery, documents that coffles of slaves, shackled one to the next, were a not uncommon occurrence on the roads during the 1850s, as large numbers of slaves were being sold from the eastern plantations further south and west. But of course, being "in chains" was meant as a more general metaphor for the condition of bondage, so this quibble over phraseology is merely a distraction, anyway. You also seem to suggest that it is fitting and appropriate and thus unremarkable to place an "unruly" slave in chains, as if slavery were justified in the first place.

As for your contention that a large fraction of former slaves were coerced into military service by the Union, this canard deprives the freedmen of the dignity of having fought for their own liberation, and is yet another deplorable attempt to diminish them and write them out of the story. Show your evidence.
 
Last edited:
Remark added to previous post- I haven't found anything on the rolls that support the contention- "these aren't real soldiers."

Were these Black Confederate "soldiers" subject to the same military regulations as a White soldier? If that cook, musician, teamster or whatever his job, violated a military code would he be charged under that code and could he defend himself against charges like a White soldier? Any examples of this happening in soldier's letters or official correspondence?
 
That wasn't my point. The mere listing of a name on a roster or muster roll as anything other that a military graded person is not an indication that he was a soldier in that nation's military, be it Confederate or United States.
I don't care. I've found the definition of soldier incredibly slippery and vague when examined in detail. Give me a rank of private and I care.
 
My point with the Hoi Chanh who was carried on a U.S. army roster as a Hoi Chanh, was not that he wasn't a soldier because he most certainly was, but rather he was not an American or United States soldier.
A matter of opinion. I am also of the opinion that 20th century criteria do not necessarily apply to the 19th.
Lets apply the Martian test. If a person with the uniform of the US, paid by the US, uniformed by the US, fighting with the US, fed and sheltered by the US, carried on the US unit roster is observed by a Martian, what would that Martian conclude.
 
Apples and oranges?

But none of the men I found fit your description - enemy soldiers that surrendered.

I haven't found anything on the rolls that support the contention- "these aren't real soldiers."

The burden of proof is on those who claim Black Confederate soldiers existed, not the other way 'round.

If there is no evidence that Silas was a soldier, and that currently appears to be the case, one can't claim he was one and be taken seriously. History is based on evidence and facts.
 
A matter of opinion. I am also of the opinion that 20th century criteria do not necessarily apply to the 19th.
Lets apply the Martian test. If a person with the uniform of the US, paid by the US, uniformed by the US, fighting with the US, fed and sheltered by the US, carried on the US unit roster is observed by a Martian, what would that Martian conclude.

Under that criteria the Martian would conclude he was a U.S. soldier. If that Black Confederate cook, teamster, musician or nurse was in a Confederate uniform, carried on a roster as a cook, teamster, musician or nurse, fed, sheltered and payed by the Confederate government, occasionally picked up a weapon when the unit was engaged in combat but was not listed on the roster by a rank, would that same Martian -especially if he had pro-Confederate leanings- reach the same conclusion as the former described by you? Of course he would which counters your argument that an assigned rank (private, &c.) on the roster is prima facie that the Black was a Confederate soldier.
 
The burden of proof is on those who claim Black Confederate soldiers existed, not the other way 'round.

If there is no evidence that Silas was a soldier, and that currently appears to be the case, one can't claim he was one and be taken seriously. History is based on evidence and facts.
I haven't claimed Silas was a soldier. So why are you telling me this?
 
A matter of opinion. I am also of the opinion that 20th century criteria do not necessarily apply to the 19th.
Lets apply the Martian test. If a person with the uniform of the US, paid by the US, uniformed by the US, fighting with the US, fed and sheltered by the US, carried on the US unit roster is observed by a Martian, what would that Martian conclude.
Under that criteria the Martian would conclude he was a U.S. soldier. If that Black Confederate cook, teamster, musician or nurse was in a Confederate uniform, carried on a roster as a cook, teamster, musician or nurse, fed, sheltered and payed by the Confederate government, occasionally picked up a weapon when the unit was engaged in combat but was not listed on the roster by a rank, would that same Martian -especially if he had pro-Confederate leanings- reach the same conclusion as the former described by you? Of course he would which counters your argument that an assigned rank (private, &c.) on the roster is prima facie that the Black was a Confederate soldier.
Here's how Levy Russell (24th SC) appears on the various rolls (@two month intervals) through the war. What do you make of it?

Rank/Duties....Remarks
Cook.....................Free Negro (this is the Muster-In Roll)
Private..................Cook for Company
Cook
Private
Cook
Cook
Cook
Private
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Private....................Extra Daily Duty
 
I haven't claimed Silas was a soldier. So why are you telling me this?

You did say that you didn't see anything on the rolls to indicate he wasn't a soldier. Either he was a soldier or a civilian. There's no third category for him to fall into.

Your comments are also addressed to people who are in the "not a Confederate" camp and generally indicate disagreement.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top