The Black Confederate

RedState.org ^ | 21 May 05 | Tom Darby

[CurlyBill]

The Black Confederate

By: Tom Darby · Section: Diaries

Contrary to popular historical education and Southern revisionists, there is much evidence that African-American's served their country not only in the Union army but also in the Confederate army and navy. This evidence is found in the diaries, journals, newspaper articles and documents written by soldiers, officers and politicians.

Many institutions have set about to dismantle these findings by declaring them as `revisionist,' however the proof that these written accounts exist at all shows that slaves were present in the service of their state and country.

It was the commanders in the field who saw the greatest potential in the use of the African-American slave long before the politicians would admit their value. On January 2nd, 1864 Major General Patrick Cleburne of the Army of Tennessee, circulated a petition among several officers calling for the enrolling and arming of slaves into the Southern Army.

The petition read in part, "As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter---give up the Negro slaves rather than become a slave himself." It was signed by three other generals, four colonels, three majors, one captain, and two lieutenants.

Politicians were horrified by the idea. Confederate Major General and political advisor to Jefferson Davis, Howell Cobb pointed out, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Davis had Cleburne's petition suppressed, yet the idea would not go away.

In February 1865, General Robert E. Lee wrote to Confederate President Jefferson Davis requesting authorization to fill his ranks with slaves, saying that they were already physically fit, and mentally conditioned to be well disciplined. In March, the Confederated Congress passed a bill that when to Davis' desk.

While it was awaiting his signature General Lee wrote the President again, "I do not know whether the law authorizing the use of Negro troops has received your sanction, but I respectfully recommend the measures be taken to carry it into effect as soon as practible." It was signed on March 13th and by the first of April, Colonel Otey, 11th Virginia Infantry, was assigned to duty in Lynchburg, VA, to recruit, muster and organize black units for the Confederate army.

Although this unit saw no action according to official accounts other records indicate they were drilling and standing by to defend the city. There are also historical documents indicating that thousands of slaves served in the Southern army as noncombatants in roles like cooks, teamsters and musicians.

And when called upon they would fight along side `freemen' who served in such outstanding state-militias like the 1st Louisiana Native Guard; Company A and F, 14th Mississippi Confederate Calvary; Company D, 35th Texas Calvary; or the 1,150 black sailors who served in the Confederate navy.

Finally, the first military monument in the US Capitol which honors African-American soldiers is the Confederate monument, erected in 1914. It depicts a black Confederate soldier marching in step with white Confederate soldiers. Also shown is a white soldier giving his child to a black woman for safety.

We may never understand everything about those five remarkable years, but we cannot ever stop trying. And it is time to realize that the historical record has been obscured to the truth on the part of the African-American's role in the Southern Army as a soldier and sailor and to bring these facts to light as both a matter of pride and education.

[x]

Your argument was just silly. It conjured up a picture of African American Confederate troops in ranks or on the line and then rushing back to play servant when officers approach. Armies don't run like that. If we are too rely on what's most logical and documented, it won't work.

I don't think anyone would argue that no slave or servant or laborer ever picked up a gun. That probably happened, especially when it was a case of kill or be killed, but the notion of hundreds or thousands of African-Americans signing up because of Southern patriotism and being mustered into service is unproven and untrue, though it is true that in the last desperate days of the war Black troops were being drilled in Richmond and Petersburg. Some New Orleans free Blacks, mostly mixed race Creoles, who had wanted to fight in 1861 weren't allowed to. They were quite atypical of the Black South, though the response to their petition was quite typical of Confederate officialdom for most of the war.

Reviews of the book you mentioned, Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., have pointed up its incongruities. Jordan jumps on every possible scrap of evidence that might support what he wants to believe and assumes his view is proven. He doesn't show the skepticism about wartime rumors and postwar legends that a good historian has to have. Apparently Jordan finds Black regiments in action at Manassas and Seven Pines. Nobody else has ever noticed them before, nor has anybody ever been able to confirm their existence since his book was written.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "Your argument was just silly. It conjured up a picture of African American Confederate troops in ranks or on the line and then rushing back to play servant when officers approach. Armies don't run like that. If we are too rely on what's most logical and documented, it won't work."

You are misreading me. Most of the time armies are idol and officers often make work to keep the troops out of trouble. Armies spend a few minutes or hours in thrilling exhilaration followed by days and weeks of boredom and dull marching. I was describing the bulk of their time, I gather you are focused on the exciting part. If you have a beef with my point take it up with the writer of the book. He is a black history professor at UVA so I hope your credentials can match his.

Re: " but the notion of hundreds or thousands of African-Americans signing up because of Southern patriotism and being mustered into service is unproven and untrue, though it is true that in the last desperate days of the war Black troops were being drilled in Richmond and Petersburg."

The later half of your statement contradicts the first half, except the numbers. They know who many of these people are. All the Southern states gave pensions to their Confederate veterans. After a few years they gave these Black men pensions as well. It was less money but it is a matter of record. How many? I do not recall but I think Jordan's book has the numbers. Again I recommend you read his book.

Re: "Reviews of the book you mentioned, Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., have pointed up its incongruities. Jordan jumps on every possible scrap of evidence that might support what he wants to believe and assumes his view is proven."

It is true his book has critics, who doesn't these days but assigning motivation is a blade that cuts both ways. If you want to assign a motive to his thinking then you invite the same treatment to his critics. Read the book. Much of what he writes is not about the men on the front, most of it is the lives of blacks in general living at the time. His facts conform to other books that deal with these topics. Two other books I recommend is "Slave Counterpoint". It deals with the early years of slavery until about 1800. It also has a narrow focus, limited to Virginia, Maryland and South Carolina. The 3rd is "The Plantation Mistress" This one is focused on the role of women and was designed to conform to a book on the role of women in New England. It is limited to events from 1830-1860 and the 3 states of Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia. All describe much the same about their lives other than differences in time and some attitudes that evolved, but you can see that changing attitude in the 3 books. These other two do not address slaves fighting for the Confederacy since they do not deal with that war but they do show his work is valid and conforms to research done by others one including a very liberal Northern woman.

If you want to think my argument is silly I suggest you take it to the writers of scholarly books. Since none of these books were written by segregationist or white supremacist and are recent works, while the data they all used is not. I would have more respect for your opinion if you could cite a source for your conclusion. You asked for a source from me and you got it but now it is your turn. Because so far the only substance to your position is..............?

[norton]

If I said capitulation, I meant defeat; and the Lincoln government could have been defeated leading up to a cessation of conflict, negotiated separation, and an eventual end to slavery in both countries.

You're right, slavery was an issue in Europe but europeans have never been shy about jumping in bed with a winner.

I'm not privy to any debates or works that get into the deliberations of a slave holder's bloc. However:
The middle of a war is not a good time to simply disassemble the institution that maintains your coffers, and
Since there were a good number of black freemen already in the South I think that inducting slaves as well as black non-slaves with a promise of freedom/citizenship would have been practical and quite possible. I expect that Lee, not a fan of the institution, had the latter in mind.

[sportutegrl]

The reason Butler issued the order was the "ladies" weren't acting like ladies. They were yelling insults and verbal abuse at any Union soldier. Butler issued the order to the effect any woman not acting like a lady wouldn't be treated as one. So you are saying that unarmed, occupied women, exercising the only weapon left, words, deserve to be raped.

[Romanov]

"I'm so sick of the states rights vs. slavery arguments.
First: War is complex and there are usually many reasons for it, and the reasons change over the course of the war.

2nd: It is not EITHER slavery OR state's rights. In fact, they are mostly the same issue. Slavery was the number one issue of the day REGARDING state's rights. It is thus perfectly acceptable, if one is going to distill the reasons for the civil war down to one reason, for one to say either slavery or state's rights."

That's not entirely true - first to believe the North was in the right you'd have to believe they waged a war mainly to liberate the slaves - that is so far from the truth it's almost laughable. Lincoln only "freed" the slaves in the South, leaving the slaves in "non-rebelious" states unaffected by the proclaimation. Also, the Northerners mostly cared not a whit about the slaves. Abandoning slavery not for moral reasons, but economical. (http://www.slavenorth.com/)

It's a shame that there is still spinning of the Civil War taking place in educational institutions. Heck, even Nathan Bedford Forrest is still painted as the father of modern day white supremicists, when in fact he hired blacks and treated them equally right after the civil war. Betcha most don't know this quote from him:

"We are born on the same soil, breathe the same air, live on the same land, and why should we not be brothers and sisters?”
--Nathan Bedford Forrest, addressing the African-American community of Memphis, July, 1875

There are a lot of self-serving myths about the origins of Slavery in the US and about the elimination of the institution. We probably all can agree that slavery was a vile unnecessary institution, however, to lay the guilt of slavery solely at the feet of southerners is incorrect.

But as to the right or wrong of the war itself, I think the following sums it up:
'"If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion."
-- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court privately delivered this opinion on charging captured Confederate officers with treason.'

[stainlessbanner]

Another piece of conventional wisdom about the old South that people don't realize is that ol' Dixie was not united at all behind the rebellion.

Many Confederate sympathizers up North, too. Thanks for pointing that out

[stainlessbanner]

Many Confederate sympathizers up North, too. Thanks for pointing that out

[TexConfederate1861]

What did they expect from Southern women? A warm welcome with roses? I think not.

[TexConfederate1861]

Pay no attention to shootsup. He is a prime example of a modern day carpetbagger.

Unfortunately, we who are native born have to endure the stench of such transplants these days. It is bad enough they are here, but to make things worse, they act like they know our history. :)

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Many Confederate sympathizers up North, too. Thanks for pointing that out

That's true. Because of so many Northern Copperheads and Southern Unionists, the Civil War is a pretty poor vehicle for regional chauvinism. But we have many Northerners who seem to think that location imputes the moral purity of the abolitionist upon every soul north of the Mason-Dixon line. Likewise, they are Southerners who cannot separate an attack on the CSA and slavery with an attack on the whole region. I don't see it being a sign of disloyalty to one's ancestors or an abandonment of Dixie to admit that Lincoln was a great man and the Union cause had more right and less wrong than the Confederate side.

[Non-Sequitur]

"If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion." -- Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court privately delivered this opinion on charging captured Confederate officers with treason.'

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired." -- Chief Justice Chase writing in the majority decision of Texas v White (74 US 700)

[TexConfederate1861]

So...I guess if Supreme Court decisions are valid, then "Dred Scott" must be valid as well by your way of thinking.......I am quite sure my African-American Brothers, etc. are ready to become slaves again....SARCASM

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Also shown is a white soldier giving his child to a black woman for safety."

Yes there were slaves in the South, there were slaves in the North as well.

The fact of the matter is, many Blacks, Free AND Slave fought for the South. The comment above goes to the heart of the fact that many slaves and slave owners had a family bond with each other. Not all true, but a great many of them. Slavery is and was a blight on this country from the very beginning of our Nation, it should have been abolished with the first Con/Con, but it wasn't.

That being said, in the 1860's in this Nation there were not 2 white men north or south that would have shed their blood to keep or free a Black man from Slavery. Lincoln himself realized this and that is why he insisted that the war was about preserving the Union, and he didn't give a damn how that happened. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves that were not under Union Control, it did NOTHING to free slaves in the neutral states or in the North.

[Non-Sequitur]

So...I guess if Supreme Court decisions are valid, then "Dred Scott" must be valid as well by your way of thinking.......

I've searched far and wide and I can't find the part of the Constitution that says only Supreme Court decisions that you happen to agree with are valid. Dred Scott was a valid decision, like it or not.

I am quite sure my African-American Brothers, etc. are ready to become slaves again....SARCASM

Put your wallet away, you won't be in the market any time soon. The 13th and 14th Amendments overturned the Dred Scott decision by outlawing slavery and making Blacks citizens.

[peacebaby]

The Metoyer family ("famille de couleur libre" - free family of color), from Cane River/Natchitoches, Louisiana is perhaps the most famous black family to own its own people. They were conservative black slave owners who fought for their right to own their people. The Louisiana plantation, Melrose - once called Yucca plantation - sits today a proud reminder of this amazing family and the Metoyer legacy.

Why is this history of black slave owners so important? Because it forces academia to look at the truth of the South's slavery issue, the truth to the Civil War - a truth history books have covered up.

It is important for me, a descendent to white slave owners, to know that my ancestors' habits were not against the black man - just as the habits of the Metoyer family were not against their own people, but were a necessary means to tame the southern landscape, to prosper for the sake of family, a survival.

[Protagoras]

A black fighting for the Confederacy is like a rich person fighting for Communism-it plain does not make any SENSE!

Sounds like the limosine liberals I know. They are legion.

[x]

The later half of your statement contradicts the first half, except the numbers.

Again, that's a silly response. A concession or qualification isn't a contradiction. It's a clarification. And such qualifications are necessary when making arguments.

"Except for" numbers and dates a lot of manifestly false statements can be made to look true. But changing the dates or numbers changes the statement. It doesn't make the original one true.

Some scholars have said that at the very end of the war, with defeat staring them in the face, the Confederate Army gave guns to African-Americans and drilled them for battle. That's a far cry from the sort of exaggerated and untrue claims that some have made about "Black Confederates." And such scholars don't make questionable assumptions about pro-secessionist or pro-confederate feeling among those who may have been called up for such duty, in contrast to your own account.

I took issue with your argument because it was unlikely and unsupported. When you named your source I pointed out that others had questioned its accuracy. Now you come up with sources that don't prove your argument. They may be interesting and may or may not be accurate, but don't do much to prove Jordan's claim about the Civil War.

To tell the truth, I don't know how many African-Americans may have fought for the Confederacy. Much depends on how one defines "fight." But some of your claims and Jordan's look pretty weak. Like a lot of people, I'm also not convinced by the "so it means the Confederacy was alright" spin you want to give such claims, or by the notion that if Black Americans worked for the Confederates it was because of Southern patriotism, rather than compulsion or personal loyalty. I'd just as soon wait until I see a more reliable account before I decide what I believe.

[Mark in the Old South]

You were asked for a source to support your position. You gave me nothing.

It must be an "x"-file.

I guess the truth must be somewhere out there.

//eyes rolling//

[x]

You've only got to go to amazon.com to read the reader reviews of Jordan's book. Ordinary readers like you and me, skeptical, open-minded and alert, have found plenty of reason to doubt Jordan's judgment and findings.

In addition, Robert Durden, the leading expert on the Confederate debate over Black troops, has questioned Jordan's thesis and evidence. Robert Krick, author of several books on the Civil War, has studied the service records of 150,000 Confederate soldiers and found fewer than about a dozen who could in any sense be said to have been Black. Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service, calls the thesis "wishful thinking."

I don't think one can prove that no African-American ever fired a gun in defense of the Confederacy. But the notion that hundreds or thousands of Confederates took up arms in the Confederate army out of Southern patriotism is unproven and highly dubious. So many of the sightings Jordan makes reference simply don't pan out, that it's hard to take his book seriously.

The truth is indeed "out there" -- and the jury is still out in this case. People are still sorting out the evidence to find out what's what. You seem to want some propagandist to simplify things, put them in boldface and capital letters, and tell you what to think. But it's going to be a while before people have evaluated all the claims. Until then, fools rush in where the wise fear to tread ...

[Mark in the Old South]

A book review is not the same as scholarship. I can provide a review that says the opposite and it would be just as worthless. The author of a review almost never has the background necessary to weed out junk scholarship. Your review of the book is just as substantive as any given review but then you haven't read the book. Well that is no concern since neither do all writers of book reviews. If that is all you have, you have nothing.