After yesterday’s post, I started thinking about possibilities… like turning a cube around and considering all of the angles, I think I may have found one that has yet to be considered (please let me know if it has been considered in another blog, book, magazine article, etc).
For these African-Americans who received pensions as soldiers (not as body servants, etc.), what if this was the result of white soldiers giving the blacks (the ones who REALLY served as soldiers), the credit that they could not give them at the time of the war? For example, Levi Miller, as the story goes, was voted into the 5th Texas by unanimous vote by the soldiers AND he is documented as having fought. Yet, he doesn’t appear in the muster rolls.
My thought is that he doesn’t appear in the muster rolls for good reason… the Confederate government did not permit blacks to enlist as soldiers. They could be cooks, body servants, etc., but until late in the war, the option wasn’t there. Miller was voted-in as a regular member of his unit earlier in the war, he was acknowledged by the white soldiers, but he was not acknowledged by the government as a full-fledged soldier. He could not be recognized by the government, on the muster rolls, as it wasn’t allowed.
It’s interesting, but this thought brings up something else. I think it lends something to the “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight” argument. Obviously, as in even modern cases of people in the military, the soldier does not believe in everything about his government. He may fight, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with the government or all of its positions. The soldier’s reasons for fighting are not necessarily those of the government (I have to say something really scholarly and intelligent here… that being… “duh!”)
When it comes to the Confederate government’s positions on blacks, this could make for some interesting discussions. For starters, what implications would this have on the manner in which modern Confederate Remembrance is conducted? I’ve posed the question before… as descendants, we can honor the soldier, but that doesn’t mean that we have to honor the government.. After all, the soldier, even the fighting soldier, had problems with decisions and actions of the government… just look at the reaction of Confederate soldiers to the 20 slaves exemption! (part of Mark Weitz’s book A Higher Duty, examines this on this page.)
Richard Williams
September 29, 2008
“For these African-Americans who received pensions as soldiers (not as body servants, etc.), what if this was the result of white soldiers giving the blacks (the ones who REALLY served as soldiers), the credit that they could not give them at the time of the war?”
Exactly Robert! I’ve made that same point myself.
“The soldier’s reasons for fighting are not necessarily those of the government (I have to say something really scholarly and intelligent here… that being… “duh!”)”
You’re stumbling into brilliance here sir! Seriously, I’ve made the same point, or attempted to, numerous times. That war, like all wars, was fought for different reasons by all involved. Sometimes one does have to state the obvious.
One of the books by Segars and Barrow about black Confederates goes into much more detail about Miller, citing newspaper accounts, obituaries, and accounts of fellow veterans.
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Thanks for commenting Richard.
So, if you agree with the situation in which white soldiers acknowledged the blacks who served as soldiers, yet the government was not in support of full recognition, how do you see this as impacting Confederate Remembrance? Is there broad “generalization” going on in the practice?
Also, where is the dividing line between white soldiers acknowledging service as a “fellow soldier” and service as, say, a body servant? Do you see that a distinction can be made whereby there is a difference in blacks acknolwedged as soldiers and those who were acknowledged for service as, say, cooks?
Although you cite Segars and Barrow, I don’t see that they make a distinction between the blacks that served as soldiers and those who served as cooks, etc. They lump all under “Black Confederates,” which can be very misleading as to motivation. I still think there is a dividing line in what and how the Confederate soldier recognized differing roles of the African-American in “service” to the Confederacy and as a “soldier” for the Confederacy.
I do wonder if Segars/Barrow found anything that showed any postwar interaction between Capt. Anderson and Miller. Do you know?
caswain01
September 29, 2008
All this talk about pensions and Black Confederates leaves me with a question. State governments, being run by higher level primates that we are, rarely do anything that isn’t in some way, shape or form advantageous to the government itself.
In this case, what was the motivation behind the State of Virginia to offer first pensions to non-soldiers, then secondly include blacks in that group? Seems to me the State of Virginia has never been too generous with the money to begin with, as the pot holes on the “Harry Bird Memorial Highway” can attest. Furthermore, the time period we are referring to was after all, known as the “Jim Crow” era.
Was there some special interest or money trail that might be connected? Or was this something done purely on the good graces of the State Legislature?
Harry Smeltzer
September 29, 2008
I’m intrigued by the idea of that all soldiers everywhere do not necessarily agree with what their governments espuses, yet fight for those governments anyway. While I remain unconvinced that any appreciable number of blacks, free or otherwise, actively fought for the Confederacy, we are presented with anectdotal evidence, including two brothers drummed out of a North Carolina regiment, on whose rolls they were listed, once it was “discovered”: that they were indeed black (or mullatto). Considering that the CSA may have employed a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for those who might “pass”, what motivated them to enlist in the first place? Was it community pride, or more likely community pressure? Certainly societal pressures compelled white citizens to enlist as well. Another blogger – I honestly can’t recall who – seemed to imply in a review of Greene’s book on the city of Petersburg that evidence of free blacks supporting the war effort due to societal pressures and economic realities was somehow evidence of less than sincere support – which is OK by me – but also discounted that support because of its basis, which doesn’t usually happen when looking at the motivations of white southerners.
I think if we can get past the ideas that significant numbers of southern blacks willingly – blissfully? – and actively supported the war aims of the Confederacy, and the counterpoint that they all actively and sincerely opposed them, maybe we can come to a better understanding of what role African Americans, particularly free blacks, played in the antebellum and wartime south. I have an ARC of Jacqueline Jones’ “Saving Savannah” that perhaps will shed some light on this.
Sorry about the long ramble. Hope you can make some sense of it.
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Hi Craig and thanks for those thoughts.
I haven’t gone into the dynamics of how the pensions evolved in the respective Southern states, but I think the influence was there because former Confederates got back into state politics and had an influence in bringing about pensions that would benefit those (below a certain monetary earning level) who struggled due to physical problems (to include wounds and even rheumatism) brought on as a result of their service in the war. Virginia’s Confederate soldier pensions actually evolved from an earlier effort to help amputees get artifical limbs.
I’m not sure how the pensions of the 1920s (for servants, cooks, government workers came about), but would have a hunch that, on the broader scale, it took meaning away from the veterans receiving pensions.
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Thanks for your comments Harry.
I agree with you and, ultimately, this is what makes the study of the Civil War an ongoing process (not to mention an enjoyable one for some of us!). While tons of books have been laid on society over the years, there is still more to tell. Like you, I’m not a fan of the absolutist mindset that some folks have, for example, on blacks who served the Confederacy. I see a difference in different groups and I don’t like the generic classification of “Black Confederates,” as it is (sorry, I’ve said this over and over again) misleading.
We might be able to figure out the motivation of some, but certainly not all (the problem is that it isn’t clearly defined by most of the people of “back then” in anything that they have left to us). It’s not unlike trying to figure out the varying (and sometimes waffling) motivations of whites in either army; although I think finding the motivations of blacks will be the more difficult task as there is less of a paper trail.
Like I have said before, I think that the biggest obstacle faced by many is getting beyond a standard way of thinking and acknowledging that other possibilities exist. Evidence shows us that there are blacks who enlisted in the Confederate army, but the act of enlisting does not tell us everything about motivation, nor does it define one specific motivation for all who enlisted (and most certainly not for those who served only as cooks or body servants). Levi Miller offers us a distinctive difference between cooks and those who participated as soldiers.
On a sidenote, in the near future, I’m going to jump off in another direction and address memory and “galvanized” troops and their pensions. I think there are some thoughts from that which may be applicable to black Confederates and their pensions.
Kevin
September 29, 2008
Robert, — Wonderful series of posts. You said in response to Richard:
“Also, where is the dividing line between white soldiers acknowledging service as a “fellow soldier” and service as, say, a body servant? Do you see that a distinction can be made whereby there is a difference in blacks acknolwedged as soldiers and those who were acknowledged for service as, say, cooks?”
Another question is how to interpret service. Were they being acknowledged for service to the army or were they being cited for the loyalty that paternalism encompassed throughout the antebellum period? My other concern, as expressed before, is that we are speculating about the motivation of Levi Miller (and others) without any documentation from Miller himself. It seems to me that without it we are on very shaky ground in assessing not just how he was viewed by others, but by how he viewed his own service. Thanks again.
Richard Williams
September 29, 2008
Robert:
I’ve expressed my views on this subject already and I’ve made my thoughts clear. No need to go through all that again.
“I do wonder if Segars/Barrow found anything that showed any postwar interaction between Capt. Anderson and Miller. Do you know?”
I’m not sure, but I’ll look.
RGW
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Richard,
Please don’t take my questions the wrong way. I’m just presenting the thought that it may be that remembrance activities are too broad in celebration. They seem to take for granted far too much, assuming too much into a singular identity, and by doing so they do not recognize the complexity of the whole. This ends up blurring the sacrifices made by the soldier. Granted, the soldier was fighting under the Confederate flag, but we all agree that motivation was not at all in regular alignment with the government. The veteran should be the focus of the celebration. In some people, that might include a celebration of the government; but that does not define it for everyone and their ancestry and I think this is where the problem begins. Too many people assume that it does.
I look forward to anything you can find about postwar interaction between Anderson and Miller.
border
September 29, 2008
Captain McBride was seriously wounded or injured (both legs broken) at the Battle of the Wilderbness, 6 May 1864.
Levi Miller states in his pension that he was detailed to nurse Capt. McBride and did so to the end of the war.
So Miller was absent from his command around the time he became a member to the end of the war.
This may be the reason he does not appear on the rolls.
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Thanks Kevin.
“Another question is how to interpret service. Were they being acknowledged for service to the army or were they being cited for the loyalty that paternalism encompassed throughout the antebellum period?”
I agree.. and I think that both are possible. For that matter, is there another possibility that we haven’t considered? When can we really come to any solid ground at all in understanding the role of blacks as either soldiers or body servants? Why do some feel the need to merge the two under one definition?
More importantly, in terms of Civil War memory, this leads to another question. Until we find solid ground, what is the motivation behind celebrating the black as an advocate of the Confederate Cause? We are still early in the examination phase. How much of what is being said is interpretation and how much is fact? More disturbing however is the thought that interpretation is being put out to the public as fact. Again, what is the motivation in this and why is a half-baked product being fed to the public?
cenantua
September 29, 2008
border,
This is another thing that is confusing. Without looking back at Jordan’s book, I think he stated that Miller nursed McBride back to health, and then was elected unanimously to the unit. Yet, he goes on to state that he served with the unit from Gettysburg to ….
Ultimately, I think that Jordan worded this in a way that leads people to believe that Miller was considered a soldier much earlier than 1864 (which doesn’t mesh well with McBride’s wounding at the Wilderness).
This leads to another question. How long was McBride absent after his wounding? We need to establish a timeline.
Next, I would like to know about more blacks who were considered soldiers. I’m not looking for a book, so please don’t cite one… Rather, I want to see how many blacks are on wartime Confederate rosters AS soldiers (not cooks, body guards, etc.).
Actually, I think we need to set three categories to start moving in the right direction.1) How many men identified as “Black Confederates” show up on actual wartime rosters? 2) How many do not show up until applying for postwar pensions as soldiers? 3) How many “Black Confederates” do not show up until applying for pensions under acts such as the one in Virginia (1920s) specifically created for body servants, cooks, etc.?
Richard Williams
September 29, 2008
Robert:
You write: “I’m just presenting the thought that it may be that remembrance activities are too broad in celebration. They seem to take for granted far too much, assuming too much into a singular identity, and by doing so they do not recognize the complexity of the whole.”
I’ve never attended one of these services, so I could not comment in any great detail. However, from the news accounts I’ve read, they appear to be fairly simple, dignified acknowledgments of the veteran’s service; however one may define it. It also appears that in many of these events, the veteran’s family is invited. Are you and Kevin suggesting these families have no idea what they’re doing? I would say that is what is “assuming too much.” As I’ve stated before, I’ve spoken to some of these veterans’ descendants and, at least the ones with whom I’ve spoken, their view is the opposite of yours.
Have you spoken to any of these men’s descendants to see how they feel about it?
Best,
RGW
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Richard,
I’m not at all being that specific when I talk about “remembrance activities.” I’m thinking on the broad scale – “Confederate Remembrance” in general. Also, it appears I used the wrong words (“take for granted”). Let me say it another way… my concern is for the general belief that is displayed at Confederate Remembrance activities wherein there is a standard belief that Confederate government and Confederate ancestors were completely together in spirit. I’m writing this on the fly, so I hope I captured what my thoughts were in that respect.
For what it’s worth however, I have been at a significant number of graveside remembrance activities for Confederate soldiers. Remember, I wasn’t a sit-at-home SCV member, but was a member for over 20 years, camp commander in excess of six years, and brigade commander. I’ve planted many a headstone, encouraged many people to support the flag, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention the amount of time I spent wearing gray in reenactments and “remembrance” activities. So, even in retrospect, in thinking back about some of those graveside ceremonies for white Confederates, we may have been doing more of a disservice to history than dealing out the truth. The families may have felt great, but that didn’t make it right and it contributed little to really understanding. Whether for a white or black soldier, Union or Confederate, the same can apply.
Best,
Robert
Richard Williams
September 29, 2008
“there is a standard belief that Confederate government and Confederate ancestors were completely together in spirit.”
That’s news to me. General Lee didn’t even agree with Richmond half the time. I don’t make assumptions either way. My ancestors fought to defend their homes, based on my family’s oral history and letters home, not for the “government.” As I discussed in another post, I think a lot of folks confuse patriotism and nationalism.
Let’s face it. All governments lie to their citizens, at least to some degree.
“So, even in retrospect, in thinking back about some of those graveside ceremonies for white Confederates, we may have been doing more of a disservice to history than dealing out the truth.”
Then you did the right thing in resigning, both for your conscience’s sake and those families.
The purpose of those services is to honor the soldier, not try and sort out all the political controversies that surrounded the war and its aftermath or to “serve history”.
No disrespect meant Robert. I appreciate the work you’ve done. You’re to be commended. Its just that your take puzzles me somewhat.
We are headed down the same road we went before on African-Americans who served/fought for the Confederacy. I promised myself I would not do that again. Those arguments are played out. You’ll have the last word here, though I may post something on my blog at some point.
Best,
RGW
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Darn it! You caught me! I usually preface stuff like that with the word “some” I knew I should not have responded on the fly.
No, I disagree about your comment about resigning. Good for my conscious but arguably not so regarding families. Let me make it clear that my primary reason for resigning from the SCV was the reaction that I got when forming a camp for the Sons of Union Veterans. The reaction and words exchanged was anything but a representation of Southern gentlemen. It revealed the nastiest side of the SCV and the bulk of it came from the leadership. You remember, you and I discussed this in person. I did receive positive comments, however, from other SCV members who had respect for the idea of a camp that could honor both Union ancestors and Confederate. I can assure you, it doesn’t matter whether the soldier in the grave is Union or Confederate, understanding the soldier and the story around his role in history is important. The political controversies don’t impact what I feel at a grave, unless they play directly into the history of the man in the grave. I stand in awe of the man and his role in history. In all probability, if we were both standing at Lee’s tomb together, the feeling that I would have would be just as moving as what you would experience.
We aren’t headed down the same road. I see this as a totally different discussion that doesn’t need to take the same route. I am able to recognize possibilities in regard to Miller and honestly, I want to learn more and I appreciate information that you can provide.
Best,
Robert
border
September 29, 2008
Here is the record of Capt. J.J. McBride from 6 May to 29 Dec. 1864-
May 6- Wounded at the Battle of the Wilderness.
May 25- Admitted to General Hospital, Charlottesville, VA.
Injury described as ‘V.S. Comp’d Fract. Thigh & R. leg’
Nov. 21- Applied for Certificate of Retirement.
Dec. 17- Retired to Invalid Corps, P.A.C.S.(Provisional Army Confederate States)
Dec. 29- Furloughed from General Hospital, Charlottesville, VA
No later record.
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Thanks border,
Where did you access the service record?
If Miller was not elected to a full-fledged member of the company until after McBride’s return to duty in December 1864, it is highly unlikely that he would have a record on file. Confederate service records are horribly incomplete after the fall of 1864.
Richard Williams
September 29, 2008
Robert:
Segars/Barrow cite as one of their sources, an article in the Winchester Evening Star: 11 November 1921. Miller’s story occupies a little more than 2 pages.
cenantua
September 29, 2008
Thanks. I wonder if the transcribed letter from Anderson (probably on one of the two pages that can’t be read on the LVA site) reveal if Anderson and Miller interacted since the war.