"Black Confederate Soldiers - Maybe Not So Many?" Topic

Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers

A textbook distributed to Virginia fourth-graders says that thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War -- a claim rejected by most historians but often made by groups seeking to play down slavery's role as a cause of the conflict…

link

…and curiously overlooks the free blacks and former slaves of Virginia who were among the approximately 200,000 men serving in the USCT and US Navy.

Years ago I read Ervin Jordan's book, "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia". He makes a strong case that free blacks and some slaves did indeed fight in the ANV and other Confederate forces in Virginia. I'm going by memory but I believe I counted a total of about 400 that actually fought as part of the ANV.

So, I would say it is possible that across the breadth of the Confederacy it might be possible that a few thousand blacks did fight for the south. The two battalions that fought under Jackson is a total non starter. No such units ever existed in Virginia.

Not sop many carrying weapons.
The technical debater would count the 10,000s who worked as laborers to build field fortifications and reinforce earthern forts. Extensive use of slaves to do this was common. They even built gun emplacements along the major rivers.

A notable rich Black merchant from Tenn was noted at the beginning of the war for financing both an infantry company and a couple of cannon. But this was a rarity.

To be fair we don't know if the blacks who fought for the Union are mentioned at all in the book. We're only being given the controversial sentance.

And the fact that, despite the pressing manpower shortages, the south waited until March 1865 (IIRC)before coming up with a formula for allowing slaves to fight. That said, large numbers of slaves often accompanied Confederate armies, but in the role of servants.

It is the first time that I have heard the claim that "two battalions" of African Americans fought under Stonewall Jackson.

Yeah, as aercdr noted, it was at the very end of the war that the South considered offering slaves their freedom if they would fight for the Confederacy. Hmm, now there's something to consider! Agree with the other statements – blacks "serving" in teh Confederate forces were slaves building fortifications, etc. Can't exactly be classed as engineers or constructions battalions.

I liked this part:

'Masoff defended her work. "As controversial as it is, I stand by what I write," she said. "I am a fairly respected writer." '

Less today than a year ago, I'd think.

But also overlooked is the 1860 census data, which has some rather unpleasant facts for some. The data shows over 5000 free blacks residing in Virginia who were also slave owners. Similar numbers are also present in the Carolinas, and Georgia.

The problem is that in these United States, there are many public school teachers with an agenda who would be more than happy to have only one set of facts presented to their students. They have but one gospel of how things are to be, and all other inconvenient truths are to be shunted aside or buried as deeply as possible.

Certainly hundreds of free blacks served in Confederate units from the beginning of the war until the end. The records are there, as are period images, and even articles and images from post-war reunions.

respects,

We are also told that 'Masoff also wrote "Oh Yuck! The Encyclopedia of Everything Nasty" and "Oh Yikes! History's Grossest Moments." '

Now those are peer-reviewed works, and should be treated as exemplary studies on their respective subjects.

I would like to see her sources. Tkindred says "hundreds" while the author says "thousands." In general, I have found TMPers to be well-informed and have no reason to doubt that statement. It also fits with what I have read, that a small number of African-Americans did fight (willingly or no). In the case of the textbook, I have not seen the work behind Ms. Masoff's internet searches.

It is the first time that I have heard the claim that "two battalions" of African Americans fought under Stonewall Jackson.

Yes, I would not mind reading more about that myyself.

Hey, if she got her facts on the Internet, they must be true.

The vast majority of those free blacks shown as slave owners were free blacks who were married to slaves or who had children who were legally considered slaves. After a certain point, it was no longer legal to free slaves so even if a free black bought a loved one out of slavery, they couldn't legally free them – thus, the records show free blacks as "slave owners". By the same token, children born in such situations were legally considered slaves, because the children of a slave (even though one parent was free) were legally slaves.

There were (a very few) cases where free blacks and mulattos truly owned and worked slaves, but that wasn't as frequent as the records suggest for the noted reason. The ones that I'm aware of and that have been studied most widely were primarily in Louisiana.

Sundance gets closer to the truth than most.

It would depend on the geographic area more than anything else.

Many free blacks moved from New England to New Orleans to avoid racial prejudice. It appears that there was less bigotry in New Orleans than anywhere else in the USA at that point in time.

If you bought and married a slave, you could not free your spouse if you lived in New Orleans proper. However, there were a number of towns in Louisiana where you could emancipate your wife (this emancipation not legally viable in New Orleans but was recognized in the rest of the state). These blacks may have owned other slaves (or not). There were many blacks that lived in New Orleans that owned slaves. I won't even begin to guess at the true nature of those relationships.

Now back to the original question, would or did any of these blacks fight for the south? Quite possibly yes but remember, New Orleans (the largest city in the confederacy) was stormed, conquered and occupied by an insignificant number of riverine marines. There was no fight in New Orleans to support the south and (unlike places farther up stream) no serious insurrections throughout the war.

mjc

Yep, the PC crowd do tend to muddle things up, as well as to ignore, or sweep under the rug those that were selling the slaves to Europeans in the first place, too.

Not just the PC crowd. They didn't invent Jacksons Black Battalions? Which ones were those, 1st VA, 12th NC?

I've looked at this a fair bit. I think the evidence is solid that there were many thousands of blacks accompanying Southern armies. We have direct eye-witness testimony to that, a Northern man who COUNTED them as Lee's army marched past. There's also the monument at Arlington.

Most of these were probably teamsters or body servants. They may or may not have been uniformed, may or may not have been armed. I suspect the captain's body servant who stayed with the company's baggage carried a pistol to protect it and himself. In any case, every one of them was doing an essential task and freeing up a white man to be on the firing line.

I think the evidence for UNITS of blacks serving under arms is much thinner and problematic.

Were there blacks mixed with whites in combat units? Not many, but also not none. "A few."

Black slave owners were indeed not uncommon in the south. Three quarters of whites in the Confederacy were not slave owners.

Thousands of black slaves dug for the Confederacy. I have yet to see evidence that they ever fought for it. There is no reason to think black slave owners would not have fought for the Confederacy but every reason to think they would not be allowed to do so. Kenneth M Stampp's The Peculiar Institution published in 1956 is an excellent examination of how slavery worked in the south if anyone would like to read more.

If there is any hard evidence of black Confederate soldiers that someone could post it would be interesting to see. I have to say though I would be suprised.

this is just from memory of something a historian told meso take it what you will

in New Orleans a group of Free Blacks formed thier own unit and tried to join the confederate army. they definately were not slaves but my memory has them has relatively successful people.
they were told "thanks but no thanks"
so they joined the union army when after the town was captured.

I agree with Oh except with relation to Stampp. It is very far from being the best book on slavery, and has been sbstantially undermined and corrected by later works, e.g. by Gene Genovese. His ROLL JORDAN ROLL: THE WORLD THE SLAVES MADE would be my choice for best single volume on slavery.

Doc, yes Genovese is worth a read too. Corzin's post seems to capture the flavour of the times. What I like about Stampp is the overview social and economic. There is lots of evidence and the well written picture comes together nicely but its not the last word.

"If there is any hard evidence of black Confederate soldiers that someone could post it would be interesting to see. I have to say though I would be suprised."

Have a look at Ervin Jordan's book, "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia". The book I quoted in my first post and the author used in the original article to debunk the 'black battalions'. There's a famous Harpers Weekly sketch of two black Confederates on picket duty in Virginia, (perhaps Yorktown or Fredricksburg, can't remember).

Corzin,
According to D.T. Cornish in The Sable Arm, free Louisiana blacks/mulattos offered to perform functions like guarding prisoners, but were turned down. The Louisiana state government did form them into a regiment of 'Native Guards (colored)' in the spring of 1861. They weren't called up to defend New Orleans after Farragut ran past the forts. Nor did the Confederate command order them out of the city when the Yankees arrived. They just stayed around as civilians.

Most of them later joined the Union army as 1st, 2nd and 3rd Louisiana Native Guards, the first black units accepted into Union service. Politically, they were acceptable because technically they were free Louisiana citizens who had decided to fight for the North, and had been in Confederate service (i.e., were not slaves raised to take part in an insurrection against their former masters).

Aside from that, I pretty much agree, the South didn't raise black units until the very end. No doubt blacks were with the armies as servants, cooks, and laborers, and might have been armed to protect property. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised to hear they did shoot at Union soldiers from time to time, and may have been shot at and even killed in return.
Grelber

In Don Troiani's book about cavalry uniforms he states that a company sized element (40 or so?) of black servants actively took up arms and fought alongside the 4th Tennessee Cavalry at Chickamauga. Take Troiani's research as you will.

From the link cited above
"The Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group of male descendants of Confederate soldiers based in Columbia, Tenn., has long maintained that substantial numbers of black soldiers fought for the South The group's historian-in-chief, Charles Kelly Barrow, has written the book "Black Confederates." "

So how many members of African descent are in the SCV organization? Thousands?

The practice of claiming to own people by residents of southern states was not the cause of the war between the northern and southern states – War Between the States (WBS).
The cause was the attempts by the northern states to prevent the expansion of this practice to lands beyond those particular southern states. The Republican Party, against this expansion, in 1860, frightened the southern leaders with its policy.
link

Even if the southern states had won the WBS, how would those states have expanded into the Federally owned territories. If Lincoln had just said to JD, ok you can succeed, but all you get is what you occupy, how would the south be better off? Would there then be fights over every territory that southern slave "owners" would try to settle?

The struggle over slavery occupied the attention of US government participants for 70-some years. Too bad so many people had to die to get rid of this diversion, but better it were gone.

a company sized element (40 or so?) of black servants actively took up arms and fought alongside the 4th Tennessee Cavalry at Chickamauga

If you're being shot at, you shoot back. The bullets don't discriminate.

There's a picture of a Virginia chapter of Confederate veterans. About 40 or 50 men. In the center of the back row is one black face: Levi Miller, body servant to JJ McBride in the 5th Texas. He drew a Confederate pension from Va for the last 20+ years of his life.

But he's the only black in the picture.

There's a set of family papers at Emory; the white man took his slave to war in a cavalry unit; the slave was a blacksmith and served as the unit's farrier. Can't remember the family's name.

On books:

Stampp wrote in the mid-50's, right after WWII and Korea and in the midst of the Civil Rights movement He portrays the plantation system as a concentration camp peopled by guards and inmates. He stresses slave resistance and also, on the other hand, brainwashing. This provided a historical justification for things like Affirmative Action.

Genovese is a generation later (1970's) and sees the plantation as an extended Victorian family. The slaves, in his view, did NOT resist the fact of slavery, but were able to substantially affect, even to determine, the CONDITIONS of servitude.

Stampp and Genovese (and other historians)sharply disagree on topics such as slave resistance, the strength or weakness of slave families, and other vital topics.

Forgetting all of the black Confederate discussion for a moment, doesn't it bother most people that they hired someone to write on Civil War history who had no background, education, or training in that subject area? It sure as heck bothers me. I live in Loudoun County, Virginia, and fortunately, my kids aren't in 4th grade yet!

Worse still, the book was approved by a committee of teachers who had no background in it, which was chalked up to the "cost" of having a substantive review process. Sheesh!

Yes, I agree.

Though the "professionals" mess up as well: see link

doc mcb,

I wouldn't classify that as "mess[ing] up"; that was a knowing fabrication. His actions and methodology (if you want to call it that) were dishonest and he even now fails to admit wrongdoing. Really a similar situation to the "Our Virginia" passage, if not worse, since Bellesiles should have known better, but apparently has an "anti-gun" agenda that is more important to him than the truth.

Fighting for the South and fighting for the Confederacy are two different things.

On books too..

'Stampp and Genovese (and other historians)sharply disagree on topics such as slave resistance, the strength or weakness of slave families, and other vital topics.'

Indeed that is why its worth reading both. I don't think Stampp ignores slave compliance and complicity for example or indeed slave owner paternalism. It is not imho so black and white – no pun intended.

But let's not derail the thread.

Perhaps after reading about all the Blacks who fought for the Confederacy we can ask for more data about all the wage slaves from the north who voted with their feet, heading south so they could enjoy the comparatively benign condition of chattel slavery.

A friend of mine was recently told how chattel slaves were better off than indentured servants, by a costumed ranger in St. Augustine. Live and learn.

Depends on how one defines "better off." In strictly material terms -- housing, clothing, diet, more broadly how much of the wealth your labor produces do YOU get to consume? -- there's some evidence that the slaves indeed WERE better off. For example, southern masters (Genovese's Victorian patriarchs)normally took care of slaves too old to work, until they died. Few factory owners did that. And slave children were less likely to be put to work than Irish kids in northern factories.

But of course, the freedom to LEAVE, to say "Take this job and shove it, I ain't working here no more" is crucially important; free workers had that, slaves did not.

Bug, yes, were I teaching a course and able to assign two books, I might use both -- or selections from both.

Strangely, the many photographs documented accounts of slaves practically mutilated by whipping scars don't entirely support the benign Victorian love-fest view of slavery. Perhaps others view them differently.

My wife had some slave-owning ancestors who wrote about their loyal servants. None ever seem to write about the thousands who fled to Union lines whenever they got a chance.

Some took decent care of their slaves, others worked them to death. The sugar industry was particularly hard on slaves, who lasted an average of 10 years each. It was cheaper to buy new ones than care for the current ones.
See Sublette's "The World That made New Orleans". He details the differences between French, Spanish and English slave codes.

Ball's "Slaves in the Family" is an interesting account of one slave-owning family from a current-day member who was looking for the facts behind the myths.

Nice point darth, maybe if they veiw slavery as so benign they may want to try it as a slave this time, or not.

It is funny though that many gamers ignore the 200,000 or so so blacks that fought for the Union and focus on the few hundred or thousand that fought for the South. So for every black Confederate they paint up do also paint up a hundred or so Black Union figs?

"But of course, the freedom to LEAVE, to say "Take this job and shove it, I ain't working here no more" is crucially important; free workers had that, slaves did not."

Of course in some of the factory towns it was possible to buy yourself into a form of slavery. You buy on scrpit at the company store, you end up oweing more than you make, if you try and leave you can be arrested and brought back.

"t is funny though that many gamers ignore the 200,000 or so so blacks that fought for the Union and focus on the few hundred or thousand that fought for the South. So for every black Confederate they paint up do also paint up a hundred or so Black Union figs?"

I have 1 black Confederate in my army, and two brigades of USCT myself. :)

Cool Jackson, I have one brigade USCT in 15mm, and one in 10mm. No black Confederates. But I tried to paint up some with Indian skin tones, they just look like well tanned white guys.

Yes, I have a sprinkling of black faces in my Rebs, mainly as teamsters or riding limbers. And I have two regiments of black Union.

There are certainly horrible examples of slave abuse. And any at all is too much.

But a historian trying to understand a phenomenon that is "gone with the wind,", as opposed to an abolitionist who is trying to create outrage leading to its overthrow, needs to ask what is the norm; what was the experience of the typical average slave?

Having established a norm, you can discuss aberrations.

It is not a "defense" of slavery to say slaves might have eaten better than northern factory workers. It is either the truth or it isn't. The evidence either supports the assertion or it does not, or (as is often the case in history) it is insufficient or too ambiguous to be sure either way.

There is room for moral judgments in history -- indeed, we must make them -- but they come AFTER we do our best to ascertain the truth: what really happened? what was it really like?

Otherwise we do end up like Bellesiles.

This is one of those myths that seems hard to kill.

Confederate soldiers that enlisted, or were drafted had papers. Those papers still exist. A few, a dozen, or so, actually record light skinned blacks that attempted to "pass", were found out and forced out of the Confederate military. Cause for being forced out: they were "black" even if free light-skin black men who'd served with honor prior to their being "outed".

One merely has to read the requirements that the CSA passed to see that blacks were not allowed to join the military as enlisted men.

If there were dozens, hundreds or even thousands of such black volunteers in Confederate service, one would think that there would be some (lots?) of Union soldiers' letters, books and such that mentioned them?

One does find Confederate stories about black servants fighting, but fighting as servants, not in a combat unit.

If allowing black men was an accepted and understood practice in the CSA, why was any attempt to suggest that the CSA do so, firmly repressed until the very end of the war?

Last I offer link

The comment about 75% of whites in the south not owning slaves is also a slippery one. The census of 1860 identified as a percentage the white house holds in a state who owned a slave, or more. Unless one wants to believe that the slave owner was single, it seems apparent that many white people lived in a house hold with one or more black slaves. In South Carolina and Mississippi the white population was recorded as nearly 49% as house holds owing slaves (decreased in other southern states), which would seem to indicate that a huge number of whites lived in a house hold that had a slave. The stats are out there for anyone willing to look for them.

Dan

Dan, there is simply no question that Levi Miller was enlisted in Company C of the 5th Texas. Unusual circumstances, to be sure. He had been and remained a body servant to Captain McBride. But he fought with the company at Spotsylvania and was voted in by the men themselves.

But where there's one, there may be more.

What do you say about the black man wearing a kepi and marching with the Confederate infantry column on the Arlington monument?

And what about Steiner's journal entry?

Dan, we've had this discussion before: TMP link

I recommend anyone interested read the letters in the above link by Captain Anderson (who assumed command after McBride was wounded) supporting Miller's application for a Confederate pension -- which he got.

'The comment about 75% of whites in the south not owning slaves is also a slippery one.'

Not sure it is slippery at all.

While it was nearly half in South Carolina and Mississippi, in Georgia two fifths, in Alabhama, Louisiana and Florida a third, in Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas one fourth, Arkansas one fifth, in Maryland and Missouri one eigth and in Delaware one thirtieth. By 1860 only a quarter of slaves belonged to masters with less than 10 slaves. Follow the money. As you say the info is out there.

Here's another case:

FWIW, one of my great-great grandfathers (the self styled "only private in the Confederate Army") had a "body servant" with him through most of the war. He fought by his side at Chickamauga, Lookout Mountain, Kennesaw, and the Battle of Atlanta. When things started looking pretty bad, Grandpa Long sent Bas home to help his wife look after the farm and protect the family. He saved Grandpa Long's best horse by hiding him deep in a nearby swamp when the Yankees came through (they got everything else though.) Bas was a highly skilled blacksmith, and did all the farrier work for the company while he was in. When he was home, he ran a blacksmith shop and kept 15 percent off the top (Don't worry about the income, wrote Grandpa Long to his wife; "He'll charge a plenty I reckon".) He was married with two children; some of my gg grandfather's letters home have messages at the bottom from Bas to his wife. ("Bas says howdy to Ellen and asks her to write to him.") After the war he remained in the neighborhood and friendly with the family; at Grandpa & Grandma Long's 50th anniversary his widow was an honored guest and featured in the newspaper article.

This is not just self-serving family legend that grew up after the war -- I have all this documented in the original letters, which my gg grandmother saved in her breakfront drawer in the parlor. They are now in Special Collections at Emory University. Some of Grandpa Long's letters were published in James McPherson's "Why They Fought."

I don't know how often this happened . . . how many folks treated their slaves decently and had good relationships with them, acknowledged marriages, allowed them to read & write, earn money, etc. I don't know how many people believed the politicians' rantings. But it's common in the South to have a fairly obvious split between the rhetoric and the actual way that ordinary decent people treated each other, despite the existence of a rotten system, plus the usual complement of nasty trash who shouldn't be allowed to keep a dog, let alone have another human being's life in their hands. But no-good folks are everywhere, including the New York draft riots. Southerners have no monopoly on them.

Jordan Noble was a drummer boy at the Battle of New Orleans and later served in the Mexican-American War. At the outbreak of the Civil War he tried to form a company of free men of color and encouraged other free men of color to do the same. I can't recall if he was denied or if the companies were disbanded when New Orleans was captured. If I remember correctly he was later in the 1st Louisiana Native Guards. Seems to me he wasn't so much willing to fight for the Confederacy as he was to fight for his city and state.

Paul