Black Confederates

[unionblue]

Terry,

Thank for the above post and the letters from the article you mention.

My problem has long been the decided lack of evidence about large numbers of black slaves or freemen serving as SOLDIERS, not cooks, servants, laborers, etc.

If there is any evidence out there that can disprove this notion, I am willing to look it over and compare its detail of sources that only Bruce Levine has provided seems to have done in his book, Confederate Emancipation.

If a counter-work is provided with the same detail and depth of sources that his book has provided, it would merit close attention.

I am waiting.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

"The records prove that there were regular regiments of black Confederates. Georgia raised six regiments of slaves, a total of 5,000 men, designated as the First through Sixth Georgia Colored Volunteers. Ther officers were all white. These regiments were ingaged at Shy's Hill, along the Duck River, at Rocky Creek Church, and at points in between.
     As the Confederates retreated north of Savannah, the regiments were disbanded, their records destroyed, and all the officers sworn to secrecy. There remains not a single word of documentation of these gallant men, who resisted the War of Northern Aggression.

Color-coded. Note the statements in bold-face. "Records prove" and "records destroyed." What's wrong with this picture?

The red emphasis might not be as clearly in error. Shy's Hill and the Duck were engagements during Hood's Tennessee Campaign. These troops were not involved in the retreat north of Savannah. They did manage to join JE Johnston in time to put up a fight in North Carolina.

What also strains credulity is that "all the regiments were disbanded" and that "all the officers were sworn to secrecy." Think about it -- how on earth would that be possible? Did Lee and Johnston and Forrest and Kirby summon all their regimental commanders and order them to be destroyed and swear them to secrecy? And haven't we been discussing rosters (that don't mention color)? Or was it just the records and officers of the First through Sixth Georgia regiments? And why just those?

Ole

[Henry Moon]

From "Civil War Memory" blog:  http://civilwarmemory.typepad.com/

Sunday, December 16, 2007

An Open Post to Keith Poulter

In a recent issue of North and South magazine (Vol. 10, No. 2) which featured an article by Bruce Levine on so-called black Confederates, editor Keith Poulter issued a challenge.  "If there is anyone out there who still believes in legions of black Confederates," writes Poulter, "I invite them to write in, spelling out their grounds for that belief, and their grounds for dismissing the statements of Confederate leaders to the contrary."  The last two issues of the magazine have included a number of letters-to-the-editor and this one in particular takes the cake.  According to this reader, "The records prove...that Georgia raised six regiments of slaves, a total of 5,000 men, designated as the First through Sixth Georgia Colored Volunteers."  A bit further into the letter the author admits that there is "not a single word of documentation of these gallant men, who resisted the War of Northern Aggression.  Yankee revisionists and p.c. historians refuse to admit that the total lack of records proves the existence of black Confederate soldiers."  Now that is a keeper for classroom use on how not to engage in historical reasoning.  With this logic we could demonstrate that every color in the rainbow was represented in Confederate ranks.  What I don't understand is why Poulter thought it necessary to publish such a ridiculous letter.  I understand that this section of a publication is reserved for readers' letters, but this silliness only exacerbates the problem by implicitly sanctioning such a view as worth considering. 

More troubling, however, is that in the most recent issue Poulter announced that the author of one of the letters will be contributing an essay which supposedly will demonstrate that roughly 3,870 "Afro-Confederates" from Virginia served openly in Confederate ranks.  Jack Maples will be working with his "genealogist friend" to bring this new evidence to light in the face of denials by "mainstream historians."  They are utilizing the 1850, 1860, and 1870 census reports along with pension records and muster rolls for their research.  Let's hope they spend sufficient time defining their terms.  In other words, what they need to flesh out is the complexity of race relations before the war and how the contingency of war altered the slave-master relationship.  We need to move beyond questions of loyalty to a more sophisticated perspective that first explores the many reasons why blacks were present with Confederate armies.  Unfortunately, I don't believe this kind of analysis is forthcoming from Maples and his co-researcher.  Maples is the author of Reconstructed Yankee which tells the story of Caleb and Tom Parker:

Civil War expert Maples tells the fictionalized tale of two North Carolina friends, one white and one black, who fought together during that war. Set in 1862, the story follows Caleb Parker, a free person of color living in the Confederacy, and his best friend, Tom Parker, a white man, as they join the Union militia and set out on their civil war adventure. After serving for a time in the army and witnessing the atrocities perpetrated by the Union side, the two decide to switch allegiances and join the Confederate Army, where things quickly go from bad to worse. After the war and Tom's death during a particularly harsh battle, Caleb returns to North Carolina and Reconstruction, a world that has been made unbearable for the newly freed black populace. Caleb then heads for upstate New York, where he is ultimately disappointed to find the same racism problems he thought he'd left behind.

In a nutshell: North bad, South good.  If this isn't enough you may want to take a look at Mr. Maples lecturing a crowd about the loyalty of southern blacks during the war.  What I don't understand is if all of these black southerners were so loyal to the various southern states and Confederacy during the war than why did it take so long for black Americans to get basic civil rights in many of these places?  How did white southerners justify a system of Jim Crow in the face of such broad-based participation and devotion to the cause? Of course, northern blacks faced discrimination well into the twentieth century, but the argument - as I understand it - suggests that the balance of loyalty was in favor of the Confederacy and not the Union.  Didn't their love and devotion to their masters and the Confederacy at least justify the right to vote and take part in our democratic system? 


Perhaps there is reason to be optimistic that the research of Mr. Maples and his co-researcher will tell us something new about this divisive topic.  My only concern demand as a loyal reader of N&S is that Keith Poulter ensure that their research meets the stringent requirements that his magazine has upheld from the beginning. 

I for one will cancel my subscription immediately if those standards are not upheld.


Sunday, December 16, 2007 in Civil War Historians, Lost Cause, Slavery, The Myth of Black Confederates | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us  

[Ghost]

From "Civil War Memory" blog:  http://civilwarmemory.typepad.com/

Sunday, December 16, 2007

An Open Post to Keith Poulter

In a recent issue of North and South magazine (Vol. 10, No. 2) which featured an article by Bruce Levine on so-called black Confederates, editor Keith Poulter issued a challenge.  "If there is anyone out there who still believes in legions of black Confederates," writes Poulter, "I invite them to write in, spelling out their grounds for that belief, and their grounds for dismissing the statements of Confederate leaders to the contrary."

What statements is he referring to here?  The Cleburne proposal of 1864?  Lee of 1865?

[Henry Moon]

Quote by Ghost: See previous post.

What statements is he referring to here?  The Cleburne proposal of 1864?  Lee of 1865?

Ghost, I'll type verbatim what editor Keith Poulter wrote in his editorial up to the quote I posted. All parentheses, italics, and punctuation are Mr. Poulter's. Below is all the text in the editorial up to his statement which begins, "If there is anyone out there...."

     "One of the things I really want North & South to be is a vehicle for the resolution of at least one or two of the controversies arising out of the Civil War. That's a big order, given that historical data are generally susceptible to multiple interpretations. Nevertheless, I make bold to claim that Bruce Levine's article in this issue on black Confederates settles, beyond any shadow of doubt in the mind of any rational person, the question whether there were any substantial numbers of blacks enlisted in the Confederate army. And the answer is no, there were not. A handful, certainly, but no more.
           Consider the irrefutable evidence. Jefferson Davis was unaware of the existence of any black Confederate troops. Joe Johnston and Patrick Cleburne and Robert E. Lee did not know of their existence. Confederate secretary of war James Seddon was wholly ignorant of them, as were General Ewell, his aide Major Campbell Brown, thousands of rank and file Confederates, and the entire Confederate Congress.  To continue to believe in the existence of thousands or tens of thousands of black Confederate troops, then, you have also to believe that the Confederate leadership remained in complete ignorance of their existence! Surely...surely...no-one in his (or her) right mind can believe this. Not in the face of the evidence set out so clearly in Bruce's recent book, and now made available (in brief) to a far wider audience in North & South. Not in the face of the unequivocal statements on the subject by Davis, Seddon, Campbell Brown, et al.
         If there is anyone out there..."

Ghost, you might pick up this issue and read Poulter's entire editorial, and Dr. Levine's article. If it's not on the newstands now you can get it through this link:  http://www.northandsouthmagazine.com/

I know about the proposals you cited, but from my reading, nothing ever came from those, and Cleburne's career suffered greatly due to his suggestions advocating the use of slaves as fighting troops. Bragg and Davis both saw to that.



Terry

edit 18:02- corrected typo

[Gary of CA]

Only one monument dedicated to the USCT and one regiment at that?  Outside the Cardozo Station of Washington D. C.'s metro system is a monument dedicated to all the men who served in the USCT.  There's a plaque for every regiment and every soldier is listed.  Right next door is a private museum too.

BTW, while I believe a handful of blacks actually fought for the Confederacy (with at least two at gunpoint at Yorktown), until the very end there was no systematic recruitment and acceptance of blacks as soldiers.  Even then, it was too little, too late and those poor guys were heckled by Richmonders.  Most blacks served in noncombatant roles including cooks, teamsters, manservants, musicians and laborers.

Might I suggest two books, Levine's Confederate Emanicipation and Manning's What This Cruel War Was Over.

[Ghost]

Poulter, North and South,: "...Consider the irrefutable evidence. Jefferson Davis was unaware of the existence of any black Confederate troops. Joe Johnston and Patrick Cleburne and Robert E. Lee did not know of their existence...."

My point being that the proposals by Cleburne and Lee concerned only the freeing and arming of slaves. 

They have nothing to do with the 28,000 free blacks of military age in the Confederacy.

So for Poulter (or anyone else) to interpret the proposals to arm slaves as meaning "no black Confederates" would be incorrect.  They are overlooking the 28,000 free blacks.

[Johan Steele]

My point being that the proposals by Cleburne and Lee concerned only the freeing and arming of slaves. 

They have nothing to do with the 28,000 free blacks of military age in the Confederacy.

So for Poulter (or anyone else) to interpret the proposals to arm slaves as meaning "no black Confederates" would be incorrect.  They are overlooking the 28,000 free blacks.

1%, 5%, 10% how many especially as the CS was quite clear that 0% was the only legal option.  By law any Free personal of color serving in the ranks as anything but servent or musician was illegal.

[Ghost]

1%, 5%, 10% how many especially as the CS was quite clear that 0% was the only legal option.  By law any Free personal of color serving in the ranks as anything but servent or musician was illegal.

Where is this law?  (A conscription law requiring whites to serve doesn't prevent free blacks from volunteering.)

[Henry Moon]

Quote by Ghost:
My point being that the proposals by Cleburne and Lee concerned only the freeing and arming of slaves. 
They have nothing to do with the 28,000 free blacks of military age in the Confederacy.
So for Poulter (or anyone else) to interpret the proposals to arm slaves as meaning "no black Confederates" would be incorrect.  They are overlooking the 28,000 free blacks.

Thanks Ghost for your post. However, I don't think I am following you, so to speak, or possibly I've missed something along the way. By the way, I admire your tenacity.

Yes, the proposals for integrating the Southern armies with black fighting soldiers, freed by the Confederate government in exchange for firing weapons at Yankee soldiers in battle, hardly saw the light of day before they were dismissed. The 28,000 free blacks of military age in the South which you mention, is what I don't understand. Neither were any, or many, of them placed in a position to kill Yankees either.  I think everyone has acknowledged that there were probably a few armed black soldiers somewhere in a Confederate army. So...I'm sorry, I'm just not following your point. If you could further simplify it, so that a three year old would understand it, then there's a possibility I might catch on. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a smart-A, or sarcastic etc.

Terry