"Were Cooks Enlisted in the Confederate Army?" Topic

"In a recent post, I took to task a well-known researcher on the subject of black Confederate soldiers, for her misrepresenting the case of a private in the 21st U.S. Colored Infantry, who upon enlistment was taken out of the ranks and assigned to work as a company cook. Although his subsequent disability discharge paperwork makes clear that the 42-year-old private's reassignment as a cook was because "he has never been able to drill, or to march with the company, or do any military or fatigue duty," the researcher stated, incorrectly, that he had enlisted specifically as a cook, and she then went on to argue that, because that man was a soldier in the Union army, all cooks in the Confederate army were soldiers, too.

In making her case, the researcher compared the USCT soldier to William H. Dove, an African American man who appears on the rolls of the 5th North Carolina Cavalry. In the comments that followed, one of my regular readers made a blunt point: "But if they were enlisted they were soldiers. William Dove, Cook, Co. E, 5th NC Cavalry was a soldier."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting, and sad.

Tango, while I will guess you are unaware, in the states black confederates would be a hot button modern political issue and probably way passes the line on the ban here. Basically, some are trying to find some small exception somewhere to justify the modern political idea the Confederacy had nothing to do with slavery and blacks were allowed and fought in mass for the south. So, misinformation abounds and one should tread both lightly and carefully. In addition, this topic is extremely offensive to many. That said and taken care of, in the US army of the civil war there was no such thing as a "cook" per se. Per Butterfield's Camp and outpost duty, extract standing orders and regulations, 1862, That to be known by every soldier, "#118 Messes will be prepared by privates of squads, including musicians, EACH taking his tour…" "#120… The kitchen should always be under the particular charge of a non-commissioned officer." Per the revised regulations, 1861, notes on Subsistence, #6, "as soldiers are expected to preserve, distribute, and cook their own subsistence, the hire of citizens for any of these duties is not allowed." The text of #118 and #120 were also present in this book. So, if true, William dove and his officer should likely have been court-martialed.

Now, this changed in late 1863. War Dep't, Adjutant General's Office, No. 323. S Washington, September 28, 1863.

The President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause to be enlisted for each cook [two allowed by section 9] two under-cooks of African descent, who shall receive for their full compensation ten dollars per month and one ration per day; three dollars of said monthly pay may be in clothing."

For a regular company, the two under-cooks will be enlisted; for a volunteer company, they will be mustered into service, as in the cases of other soldiers. In each case a remark will be made on their enlistment papers showing that they are under-cooks of African descent. Their names will be borne on the company muster-rolls at the foot of the list of privates. They will be paid, and their accounts will be kept, like other enlisted men. They will also be discharged in the same manner as other soldiers.

This was codified in Kautz's Custom of Service for NCOs as #269 thru #271.

269. COOKS.—The law now allows the enlistment of four African under-cooks for each company of more than thirty men; if less, two are allowed. They receive ten dollars per month, three of which may be drawn in clothing, and one ration. (See Act March 3, 1863, section 10.) They are enlisted the same as other enlisted men, and their accounts are kept in the same way: they are entered on the company muster-rolls, at the foot of the list of privates. (G. O. No. 323, 1863.)

270. These cooks are to be under the direction of a head-cook, detailed from the soldiers alternately every ten days, when the company is of less than thirty men; when the company is of more than thirty men, two head-cooks are allowed. These are quite sufficient to cook the rations for a company; and, by system and method, the comfort and subsistence of a company may be greatly improved. The frequent changing of cooks under the old system worked badly for the comfort of the soldier, and they were often treated to unwholesome food, in consequence of the inexperience of some of the men.

271. The object of changing the head-cooks every ten days, as required by section 9, Act March 8, 1863, is to teach all the men how to cook; but it will follow that the under-cooks, who are permanently on that duty, will know more about it than the head-cooks. They will simply be held responsible that the cooking is properly performed.

Notice, there is no permanent "cook" position, but permanent black undercooks who's only job was to cook were allowed to be hired.

Painting a broad brush about any issue will not hold water. There are exceptions to every concept or opinion.
Their were cases where Blacks did participate in the Southern forces. The situation of the Nashville businessman who financed anartillery battery and later an infantry company. I would rega d this as an exception rather than a rule.
Another occurrence was the drafted owner being able to substitute a slave for himself. I imagine these were used as cooks rather than given a gun but I have not researched it. Were cooks used as stretcher bearers during a battle?

The citing of the regulation above should answer most situational questions.

When Cleburne suggested making soldiers out of slaves, Joe Johnston did not entirely endorse his proposal, but he did suggest that slaves could be used as cooks, teamsters, etc., thus replacing "whites" who could thus be sent to the ranks. But I'm pretty sure that slaves were already being used as cooks, teamsters, etc., but perhaps informally; that is, as slaves of officers, soldiers, etc., not as officially part of the army.

"… this topic is extremely offensive to many…" (?)

Amicalement
Armand

Let's just skip straight to the article's conclusion.

"While it does appear that at least a handful of African American men were carried on the rolls of Confederate regiments, it's equally clear that the practice was not only not common, but exceedingly rare compared to their actual numbers. Formal regulation, personnel records from the National Archives, and anecdotal evidence all make clear that, while Confederate cooks were an indispensable part of the army, and part of soldiers' daily lives, they were almost never formally enlisted or carried on military rolls. As a general rule with (it seems) very few exceptions, cooks in the Confederate were not enlisted, and though part of the army, were legally, socially and operationally fundamentally different from the privates, corporals and lieutenants they served."

Confederate state pension papers after the war tell the story. I'll not dive in and explain as I gave up doing so years ago.

dan