I think there is something that is missed in all of these discussions about blacks in “service” roles with the Confederate army. Let me be more clear. We know there were some in the muster rolls of units, and to spare me the rants of those who completely fail to understand where I am coming from and the rants of those who want to come at me and say “by golly, I’ll show you a black in a Confederate muster roll!” I’ll say it again, don’t waste my time or yours. Why? Because I’ll be the first one to say that I found information that shows that a slave (formerly serving as a cook for a mess) was allowed to enlist in Co. K, 10th Va. Infantry (though there is not one record after that enlistment record). And yes, I’m even well-aware of people such as Henry “Dad” Brown (free black), who served in two South Carolina units. Yet, this is not my point in this post. Again, my attention is on those blacks (mostly slaves… although many free blacks were also coerced to support the “Cause” in various forms… yes, coerced) and served in “service” rolls with the army, not in it. The argument has been made, here and there, that perhaps the Confederate government did not recognize these men as soldiers, and perhaps the pension legislation, in an era of discrimination, did these men wrong, and that the effort to see them all, now, as soldiers, rights that wrong. Once again, let me be clear here. Do these men need to be recognized for the individual sacrifices? Yes! Do they need to be honored as Confederates? Errrrr, that’s a lot more complicated. Should they all be considered soldiers? No, but allow me to give my reasons.
There is much discussion about the servant pension records, and as I have pointed out before, legislation (at least in Virginia, and I believe from what has been offered elsewhere, also in other Southern states) made a clear distinction between those who were soldiers (veterans pensions) and those who were not (servants pensions). The focus on these servant pensions is on the blacks who applied for them. But, what about the whites who applied for them? Yes, you read that right (and I’ve said it before)… whites applied for servants pensions because the legislation included those who served in government-related jobs. So, black or white, these people were not considered soldiers… and subsequently were not seen as veterans.
By the way, a third great grandfather of mine, Rodham T. Mayes, served as a teamster with the Laurel Brigade (7th, 11th, 12th Va Cav., & 35th Bttn. Va. Cav.) for a while. Actually, when his son wanted to go home, he took his place as a teamster until his son came back. Yet, does this make Mayes a soldier? Not at all. He served as a civilian teamster, not a soldier. Another ancestor, a second great grandfather, Charles R. Hilliard served as a military, not civilian, teamster. He originally enlisted in the Fall of 1864 in Co. D, 7th Va. Cav., but was NOT on the muster rolls that survived the war (again, CS service records are particularly bad after the summer of ’64). Yet, he secured affidavits from fellow veterans that he was a comrade/soldier, and therefore, was able to secure a veteran’s pension. His enlistment as a soldier was supported, and he subsequently rewarded as a veteran in a pension. How many whites or blacks who served as civilian servants or government workers, were “upgraded” as soldiers and veterans by affidavits from “comrades” claiming that these men were also soldiers and therefore deserved veterans’ pensions??? Please list them as I’d really like to know…
“Honoring” these civilians (and frankly the individual soldiers as well) requires a lot more than just slapping a label on a group of people, ordering headstones, holding graveside services, and annually sticking a flag in the ground over the grave (something, by the way, that I have major issues with when it comes to the Civil War). “Honoring” these people, white or black, is a matter of making the effort to understand the complexities of individual service. On the other hand, a complete and utter failure to “honor” is exhibited by careless categorizing and labeling (to wit… “black Confederates”) just to satisfy some personal agenda of the living.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. First, we need to drop the “black Confederates” (or even “colored Confederates”) label, as it is misleading. It suggests an across-the-board support of “Cause,” and when it comes to slaves and even free blacks supporting the Confederate Cause en masse… well, there are a lot of problems with that. That’s not to say that there aren’t individual situations that suggest otherwise, but let’s drop the utter silliness of blanketing each and every one of these men with the label of “black Confederate.” Instead, we should honor the men first and then work to understanding motivations, which, frankly, will probably never be accomplished across-the-board. Again, and even as in the case of those who served in the military, honoring comes best by making the full-bodied effort to understand the individual men and all that can be found and considered in regard to service and their lives in relation to those they served.
James F. Epperson
May 22, 2009
It is impossible to articulate how much I agree with this (assuming I read it correctly, which is an open question before I am properly caffinated for the day). Did blacks serve the Confederate army? Absolutely, in myriad numbers. That doesn’t make them Confederate soldiers.
cenantua
May 22, 2009
Exactly… and that reminds me… I need to make my coffee!
Kevin
May 22, 2009
Robert and Craig,
I appreciate your recent posts (and not so recent posts) on this subject. One of the things that I am finding to be a stumbling block is the perception that we are doing history on the blog. Yes, we are countering specific points made by others and offering our own advice on how to think about this subject, but what many seem unable to grasp is that we are not engaged in historical scholarship. That is done in scholarly books and journals and is part of an ongoing dialog within a clearly defined historiography. Referencing sources and drawing conclusions is not to be considered serious scholarship. Of course, the two of you understand this, but I am finding that for many this process is foreign.
The other aspect of this issue that I’ve never understood is that no one is denying that blacks did not participate in the war. They did and in countless ways. What we are interested in, however, is better understanding how they participated as well as their status. I may be wrong, but another thing that I find many have trouble understanding is that slavery did not end in the South in 1861. In fact, the same concerns that white southerners had before the war were magnified with the election of a Republican president and, especially, with the start of armed conflict. The fundamental question that white southerners had to address was how to fight a war and maintain the institution of slavery.
Thanks again for your efforts. I’ve learned quite a bit.
Craig Swain
May 22, 2009
Thanks Kevin.
As you and I have experienced in the past, I always invite spirited debate and challenge others to challenge my ideas and perceptions. But what I despise is the attitude that something “is” without the right level of analysis to back it up.
Craig.
cenantua
May 22, 2009
Thanks for commenting Kevin. I think we’re dealing with a lot of different things that challenge traditional thought with respect to historical studies & presentations. I often see situations in which I think traditionalism is clashing with the digital presentation format. As you point out, this is not complete scholarship, however, I think this can (at times) be considered a part (emphasis on “part”) of serious scholarly exercises.
As for the ongoing discussion of “black Confederates,” in various comments, I think I’m seeing two corners with two static lines of belief, clashing with each other. The end result moves us no closer to and understanding of how just complicated it is to figure out. I think there is an unrealistic drive in some to find complete and conclusive answers. As you know, it’s just not that simple. Understanding the lives of slaves and free blacks in the social system of the South is no easy task, and again, as you point out, the complications extended well beyond the war.
Kevin
May 22, 2009
Robert,
I couldn’t agree more re: your comment about the role of blogging. No doubt, it can further our understanding of history and the historical process itself. My concern is that far too many people who read our sites seem to be operating under the assumption that the process begins and ends between the writing of a post and the offering of a comment. In other words, that this defines what means to engage in historical discourse.
Yes, we can surely have meaningful Online dialog, but my commentary on the battle of the Crater, for example, should not come to define my qualifications for speaking authoritatively on it. I leave that to my published work, which stands or falls based on competing interpretations and/or weaknesses found in my own interpretation. One of the problems with this issue of black Confederates is that there is so little scholarly work on the subject. We are left with a great deal of silliness that has very little, if nothing, to do with actual research or even an understanding of broader historiographical issues.
We end up being seen as aggressors/instigators who are seen as threatening some sacred narrative that has very little to do with serious history. What is so depressing at times is that we are the ones who are challenging ourselves to better understand these complex issues. Sorry for the rant, but I noticed that you and Craig are dealing with the very same issue.
cenantua
May 22, 2009
Kevin, I agree with you on all your points and think you are on the mark when you mention many of us as being seen as aggressors/instigators when all we are doing is challenging ourselves (and others) to think through these complex issues. I think this is the educator inside us. As I’ve mentioned before, in many cases, we are “thinking as we write” and that is how it needs to be understood. We offer challenges and look for responses and even counter-arguments that are thoughtful and supported with a certain level of evidence. The frustrating part is where we continue to receive counters that take us nowhere beyond square one.
Greg Rowe
May 23, 2009
Robert:
I like the way you differintiated between “veteran’s” pensions and “servant’s” pension by pointing out that Confederate civil servants applied for the servant’s pensions, often receiving them. I think that is an aspect of the defining of “service” and “soldier” that has been overlooked.
As far as blogging goes, this is not the end-all, be-all of history discourse. Can it be a place to start? Yes, you and I have discussedseveral times on this blog about different aspects of CW and Southern History that needs more research and interpretation. Perhaps that is where I see this medium taking us — into deeper study of topics that many gloss over or have the “I saw it on the Internet so that must mean it’s true” or “That blog piece was written by a historian, so that makes it interpretation” attitude. Blogging is another tool in the box, and while it is a means of debunking myth (as Kevin is doing) or taking history to the masses, it by no means should replace serious publication of research findings and interpretations, subjected to the peer-review process.
cenantua
May 24, 2009
Thanks for the comment Greg. Glad you appreciated my effort to show the difference through white “civil servants” of the Confederacy. Your use of “civil servants” is also an interesting.
Regarding your comments about blogging, I agree. As I’ve said, blogs have a role as part of the “scholarly exercise.” Therefore, posts can be a part of serious scholarly efforts that lead to publications (though I should be clear that because of the affordances of the Web, “publications” should not be considered limited to print media… in fact the Web may hold more effective means of conveying findings to readers).
I think that a problem faced by historians in the “scholarly exercise” in blogs is that they cannot be certain that readers “consume the product” in the manner that they hope. On the other hand, are we as historians, fully aware of the “design process” necessary in the creation of the product, considering the non-social and social interfaces and what role each plays in presenting ideas for consideration?