Ok, once again I’m caught watching non-history programming on the History (Channel). My official excuse is there was nothing else on except re-runs of old 80’s shows in TV Land, and some news program where people yell a lot. So I had UFO Hunters rolling in the background while I worked on Historical Marker entries.
If you are not familiar with that sorted bit of quasi-reality TV, the premise of UFO Hunters has a team of investigators (using the term loosely), or as they prefer UFOlogists, looking at specific cases with the aim to prove or disprove the existence of these craft long speculated to pass through our skies. So unless you figure on the “pop” history slant, this isn’t history. The “crew” is balanced by a notional skeptic, who’s job, I guess, is to keep some semblance of reality to the script. Look I don’t want to knock the guys. They have their TV Show and I don’t, so who’s top rail there? But the stuff is really just UFOtainment more than anything else.
But, listening to the dialog of the show, I was struck by the similarity of the logic in the exchanges between “believers” and “skeptics” of the UFO theories AND discussions with regard to a particular set of topics relating to the Civil War. Indulge me for a bit, and I’ll provide an example of what I mean. Here’s a clip from a previous show. Rather saucy, as the team is on the trail of some Nazi UFO:
Sorry, it is some 8 minutes long. So let me hit some high points to consider –
First we have this premise that structures (the “henge” thing and later in the clip a sanatorium room) are somehow extraordinary, and somehow connected to some strange phenomena. In other words, the ordinary, mundane sites are assumed to not be what they seem. I particularly like the lines about the “henge” being camouflaged and reinforced, since “strong forces were acting on it.”
Next we have the search for tangible evidence. The assumption here, if things are “strange” then we must have radioactivity! Later documents are shown, in part, with selected sentences highlighted for emphasis. No context, just delivery.
Within this dialog are seeded speculations designed to strike a chord with the intended audience. We’ve got Nazis working on that wonder weapon, using people from the concentration camp, and of course the time travel bit thrown in for good measure. Notice that even before proof of activity at the site, the believers in the group are already explaining how the craft functioned!
When plausible explanations are offered, the debunking of the debunking begins (I think about 3.45 or so into the clip). The henge is shown to be similar to a water tower base (which needed to be reinforced and protected by the way). “Oh, of course they are similar… people built it and camouflaged it to look like something else.” “If you are going to have a test rig you hide it in plain sight.”
And then the conclusions – Nazis benefited from extraordinary unconventional technology, which was only footsteps away from some “wonder weapon” that would save Germany, perpetuate the war, and led to the US defaulting on a ton of War Bonds (ok, I’m adding that last bit for effect).
On the other hand the skeptic summarizes his view at the very tail end of the clip: “Look, this is just like every other UFO case we’ve investigated. There’s always a witness – we can’t confirm the testimony; information that we can’t find strict evidence for; there’s always a door closed, there’s always an underground facility….”
I just see too many similarities in the logic applied here, on both sides, regarding the issue of Black Confederates. How often are we presented with something purported to be “evidence” that clearly is not what the presenter claims? Or is taken completely out of context to make it seem what it isn’t?
I see very similar assertions and starting point assumption errors made every time the claim is advanced for “tens of thousands” of Blacks serving in the Confederate Army. We are told to look for the equivalent of “radioactive traces,” if you will, among muster rolls, newspaper accounts, and other sources. We are told that the Black Confederates were so well integrated into the army that the evidence is “hiding in plain sight.” Good example, some time back a person who argued firmly the case of Black Confederates directed me to look at a muster roll for a particular regiment. The roll supposedly showed a freedman who served. Well there was a bit of a problem. The “muster roll” was actually a tally of men who were in a militia company formed before the war. The company was not taken to Confederate service until some time later. At that time there was no by-name tally on the rolls. I was told to “assume” since the records didn’t show to the contrary that the freedman must therefore have served at the start of the war. So absence of direct evidence is seen as plausible corroborating evidence. I don’t know about you, but my geiger counter isn’t budging.
And even before any tangible evidence is presented that large numbers of Blacks were wearing butternut, the “believers” will start offering speculation with regard to motive. Let’s see we have the “loyal slave” argument. We have the “fighting for their freedom” argument. And the ever popular “They believed in states rights too!” argument. And on and on.
At the end we are presented the conclusion that mass numbers of Blacks served the Confederacy, and that somehow absolves the Confederacy of the stains of slavery, and to a degree racism.
In a more recent UFO Hunter episode (for which the clip hasn’t made it to the internet), the lead investigator (sunglasses guy) makes a statement to the effect that “The wall dividing the physical trace evidence from the proof we seek is paper thin at this point. We just have to work a little harder to break through and prove the existence of extra-terrestrial visitation.” If I make some substitutions here does this ring a bell? – “the wall dividing the primary source evidence we’ve presented from the acceptance we seek is paper thin at this point. We just have to work a little harder to prove that Black Confederates served in large numbers and the Confederacy was only about states’ rights”
Personally, I echo the skeptic’s conclusion – In nearly all claims for “thousands” of Black Confederates we’ve investigated. There’s always witness testimony we can’t corroborate. There are always muster rolls that don’t match the claims made. There’s always a fleeting photograph in bad light. There’s always some other hint of a thread that leads to nowhere. So can we just come to the conclusion that tens of thousands of Blacks did not, after all, embrace the Confederacy and, based on the preponderance of evidence, instead went flocking to the Federal Armies as they marched into the South?
Cenantua's Blog 
kevlvn
May 15, 2009
Dynamite post, Craig. Your analogy with UFO Hunters is spot on. The problem with UFO Hunters not the presence of evidence. They’ve got plenty of it. The problem is that they are already convinced (as you correctly note) as to what it means. That’s not how serious investigators – regardless of whether they are scientists or historians – work. I am going to link to your post and let you deal with my readers for a while. I am tired. Thanks again.
Kevin at Civil War Memory
Russell Smith
May 15, 2009
There were black Confederates. How many is subject to speculation. I know an elderly black man who’s grandfather was in the Confederate Army. He has pictures and even the Confederate Flag that drapped his grandfather’s coffin. I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Here’s a link to his story, I hope you enjoy – Nelson Wnbush
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/07/State/In_defense_of_his_Con.shtml
Here’s another story about a black Confederate buried in Fl
http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net/Articles/Minorities/conf_mem_day.html
Craig Swain
May 15, 2009
Russell,
You’ve mentioned two. Yet I keep hearing about tens of thousands.
But those two cases prove my point. In both cases there is more hearsay than actual evidence. With regard to the gentleman who’s coffin was draped with the Confederate flag, well that seems a bit less than affirmative evidence.
Nelson’s case is well known, and it was established that Louis served as a servant and in support roles. His “unit” was Company M, 7th Tennessee Cavalry. When J.P. Young wrote the the history of the regiment in 1890, “Joe Nelson” was listed as one of the “Colored men with Company L” indicating a supporting role, without the rank of Private. Sort of hard to believe that Nelson would attain the rank of private, yet Young would not list him as such (and with the wrong company BTW).
Again we are left with much less than the solid evidence that we ask for. I think you are right in one regard. There were black men employed in support capacities of the Confederate Army. But very, very few if any were employed as soldiers, under the definition of that avocation as known in the Civil War.
You’ve offered two examples. I’m looking for the other 89,998 examples. Of that number there must be at least a couple hundred diaries, letters home to someone, etc. So where is that evidence?
Craig.
acwresearcher
May 15, 2009
Craig:
I have a difficulty with both subjects. Great post.
Russell:
It is this sort of anecdotal evidence, as Craig and other historians point out, that poses the problem with analyzing the presence of black Confederates in any number. Former Confederate states granted African-Americans pensions based on “service,” but failed to define whether said service was as a soldier (whether volunteer or conscript doesn’t matter; in most eras the term “soldier” applies to both) or as a laborer, so most pension records, while evidence of the presence of blacks with and maybe even “in” the Confederate army, do not tell us what function contemporaries (white Confederates) saw them as having. My definition of a soldier, yours, Craig’s or any historian’s is really irrelevant. How did people who were recognized as soldiers in said Army view these alleged “black Confederates?” This is still open to much speculation and debate and may take years to sort through using more contemporary sources and fewer anecdotal sources produced in a later era.
cenantua
May 15, 2009
Good points Greg. I’d also look more toward what was said by the Confederate soldiers about the service of blacks at the time of the war than in reflections after the war. The pivotal point in all of this is that we should look at each person’s “service” individually and assess the bigger picture, not at all of them collectively under one category. The service of one, ten, or 100 blacks as Confederate soldiers in the ranks, as servants who happened at some point to pick up a musket and/or serve on a picket line, as slaves concerned over what would happen to them if they did not follow their master, as reluctant slaves hoping for the off-chance that they would be granted freedom for faithful service… each story needs to be considered in the larger understanding of the role these men played during the war. Some parallel that of others, but all are not properly summarized in one category. One, ten, or a hundred men does not define the “service” of the supposed 90,000 or so blacks categorized as “Black Confederates” or “Colored Confederates.” To put them all in one category is misleading and does nothing for our understanding of what I believe is a much more complex story.
Again, we need to look at things differently. Just as in the case of looking at the war as a mere sectional crisis, we need to move away from the “from the top-down approach.” It does nothing but fee generalizations, stereotypes, and misunderstanding. What matters most is what mattered most to each person as an individual. Again, from the bottom-up. Sometimes we can learn what this meant to the men as individuals, but many times we are left with nothing but speculation base on shallow evidence. That’s just not good historical practice. Furthermore, the need in some to “quantify” “Black Confederates” needs to be abandoned in order for us to begin to see the multiple angles of the overall story. I find it strange that some can only see one part of the story and tell only that story as all-defining. It leaves me thinking that the drive behind it is more to satisfy a modern purpose than to understand the past and the people in it.
Russell Smith
May 16, 2009
The CSA kept very poor records. I seriously doubt, and always have, that entire regiments or companies of blacks served in the Confederate army. Nonetheless, there are enough to recongnize that they did exist. People have asked “why” a black would serve with the Confederacy. Then this gets into a debate about slavery, racism, and exactly what is “service”. My answer is survival. Because the Civil War was nearly 150 years ago, people have forgotten how bloody and how brutal it was. Likewise, because of political correctness, there began a move some 20 years ago to make the Confederacy out to be something it was not.
The SCV, as the successor of the UCV, honors those that served in the CSA military regardless of role. This is no different than the VFW, American Legion, and other veterans groups. Teamsters, laborors, cooks, and even nurses and chaplins count. We even have a couple of members who joined under the service records of their great grandmother.
Craig Swain
May 18, 2009
Russell,
I guess here’s where I’d ask for the focus on the definition. You mention the SCV standards for membership, yet membership of a descendant in the SCV does not equate to proof someone served in any capacity. Like it or not, the SCV (like the UCV before it) is an independent organization from the Confederate Army. We’re talking apples and oranges here. It is like saying “I’m a member of the Country Club” then equating that to “I play golf.” We both know there should be a link between the two, but in the scope of possible realities, such is not always the case.
Specifically, if the SCV opted to include various service support roles in their numbers, that does not automatically mean that those filling service support roles were considered “in the Army” by the government of the Confederacy.
There are some fine hairs to be split here, and they all revolve around the actual definition of “soldier” at the time of the war. We seem to forget that teamsters, laborers, cooks, nurses and chaplains were not considered “in the Army” by the definition used at the time. They were seen as, what we’d call today, contractors. Heck, in the US Army there were even entire groups of scouts and interpreters which were not formally members of the US Army. Many of these roles were not formally staffed by official “members of the Army” until the reforms of the 1890s.
Craig.
Russell Smith
May 18, 2009
Craig,
Lets also consider that the Confederate army was not as strengent, or organized as the US army. Like you said, we’re splitting hairs here. Militia’s and Partisan Rangers were not part of the regular Confederate army either. As the gentleman above mentioned, how many served in non-combat roles and then found themselves picking up a musket or manning a cannon? Likewise, there were examples of civilians who found themselves in similar roles as invading Union forces marched by. For those reasons, I believe a different standard should apply to Confederate military service than that of Union military service. If we are to do justice to the true history of the Civil War, an open mind to all posibilities must be kept. Especially in study of the Confederacy. These were people and their story needs to be told.
I have never read either of these books but hope to some day:
“Black Southerners in Confederate Armies” by J.H. Segars and Charles K. Barrow.
“Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia” by Erwin L. Jordan
cenantua
May 18, 2009
Russell,
“Service” was defined by those who served during and after the war. When we consider the role that African-Americans (slaves and free blacks) played in relation to the Confederacy and the Confederate army, especially considering post-war pension legislation (1920s-1930s), it was made quite clear that black (or white, for that matter) body servants, cooks, government workers, or trench diggers were not equals to the “veterans.” Otherwise, they would have, each and every one of them, been allowed to apply for pensions as “veterans.” I cannot emphasize it enough that it seems quite strange that many of the blacks who did serve as body servants, etc. did not apply for this pension based on “service.”
Robert
Craig Swain
May 18, 2009
Russell,
And here’s my point again. Can you point out, laying the service regulations side by side, the difference between the US and CS field and administrative regulations? If there were this difference you note, then why did both services more or less use the same daily report format? If we are going to apply a different standard, then that standard should be ground in the facts – i.e. the regulations under which the army operated.
I’ve got an open mind to a lot of possibilities here. But an open mind is a questioning mind, and I think you can agree there are just too many unresolved questions here.
Regarding the “took up arms” cases, it seems these are also areas where context and corroboration should be considered. How many black teamsters were involved with the “Wagoneers” fight outside Hagerstown? How many were caught up in the retreat from Third Winchester or Cedar Creek? Certainly a “took up arms” case from one of those rather well documented fights would be easy to place within context.
Craig.
cenantua
May 18, 2009
I’d also add that a sons (or g-g-grandsons) organization is not, in any way or form, the same as a veteran’s organization. Furthermore, the further we get in years away from the event and the men who lived in the event, more and more “liberties” are taken amongst those who who claim to “keep the memory alive,” and that “memory” today, is no longer as accurately reflective of the opinions and voice of the veterans as it once was, in the 1920s and 30s. The SCV today is (just as one example) no longer the SCV of the day in which the real sons actually WERE the organization.
Robert
cenantua
May 18, 2009
Indeed, the Confederacy did keep poor records, and to that end, we often cannot clearly distinguish between who was a “volunteer” and who was an unwilling conscript. In my experience in dealing with the Confederate service records, I’ve seen more than my fair share of unwilling participants and there was no reflection of it in the actual service records. That said, I anticipate a response to my having said this… that “it was no different than with Vietnam.” That, however, is not comparable to the situation that Southerners faced in the years 1861-1865. The situation was very different.
Richard Williams
May 16, 2009
“I’d also look more toward what was said by the Confederate soldiers about the service of blacks at the time of the war than in reflections after the war. The pivotal point in all of this is that we should look at each person’s “service” individually and assess the bigger picture, not at all of them collectively under one category.”
I agree with you 100% on this point Robert. I would add that their comments after the war are also relevant. Though influenced by post-war political realities, the mellowing of attitudes, at least to some extent, also played a role in CSA soldiers’ views and attitudes.
Mike
May 16, 2009
I wish someone would have documented some of this stuff when the Men were living and coming to the Reunions. It would make our job lots easier.
Craig Swain
May 18, 2009
Mike,
Yes, it would have been nice. But here’s where I call in that skeptical “Ockham’s Razor” bit. Which is more likely?
– Scores of black veterans of the war attended UCV events but their stories were not written down (as were the countless accounts of white veterans). They were excluded solely because of race.
OR
– Scores of black men attended UCV events, were welcomed by the white veterans who remembered their service support roles, but were not considered true “soldiers” since they didn’t actually fight. Their stories were not recorded since the service was not seen as noteworthy at the time.
Seems to me the second possible solution is the more likely. The first requires some level of suspended dis-belief, assuming a nation-wide cover up was in place.
But again, as Robert said, there are many individual stories that must be considered and taken into account. There are many fine grained details we must examine. And there are many high level currents that help place those details in context.
Craig.
cenantua
May 18, 2009
It was well-documented. One just needs to look at the annual reports of the UCV as well as the convention reports.
Craig Swain
May 18, 2009
Robert,
Perhaps I needed to qualify that more. I’m referring to supporting evidence that thousands (not singles) of blacks served in the Confederate army in the role of soldier.
cenantua
May 18, 2009
Craig,
Sorry, my comment was supposed to be a direct response to Mike’s comment. I think there is a misunderstanding that apart from the CV magazine, there was little or no documentation left from the conventions, etc. when in fact there was. I have several convention reports in my collection. I need to look at them again, but from what I remember, large numbers of “black Confederates” was never a major topic of discussion in the actions at the conventions (at least in the years that I have copies for).
Bob Pollock
May 18, 2009
“Likewise, because of political correctness, there began a move some 20 years ago to make the Confederacy out to be something it was not.”
Russell,
Could you elaborate on this? I’m fairly familiar with CW historiography and I don’t think this is accurate, but perhaps I’m misreading you.
Russell Smith
May 18, 2009
Bob,
Specifically what I am referring to is the resolution by the NAACP in 1990 to remove all Confederate monuments standing and along with it, their attempt to equate the Confederacy with Nazi Germany.
Robert Moore
May 18, 2009
“Likewise, because of political correctness, there began a move some 20 years ago to make the Confederacy out to be something it was not.”
Personally, I have seen this to be the case even among those who claim to be preserving the memory of the Confederate soldiers… making the Confederacy and the Confederate soldier out to be something it/they were not.
Robert
Bob Pollock
May 18, 2009
So, Russell, you are arguing that the NAACP has somehow since 1990 convinced the American public that the Confederacy was something it was not? I would agree with you that the Confederacy did not engage in systematic genocide like Nazi Germany did, but the Confederacy was a government formed to protect the institution of slavery. That is not politically correct, it is historically correct. And the proof of this does not come from anything the NAACP has said since 1990, it comes from myriad sources from the nineteenth century.
In his Personal Memoirs, U. S. Grant wrote: “As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man.”
He was correct, but the result is the continuing denial that the Confederacy had anything to do with slavery.
As to black Confederate soldiers, you are correct that the issue of their existence gets wrapped up the question of why they would fight for a government dedicated to their continued enslavement. But, it is a reasonable question. Your answer “survival” should be considered, but it is not the final answer, nor proof of their existence.
Kelly Barrow
May 19, 2009
If I am not mistaken, those who fought for the United States from 1861-65 fought for a Constitution that declared slavery legal. So it seems they fought for slavery too. As far as Black Confederates, try Pvt. F. Presley Co. E, 23rd Regt. Ga.Inf., Drummer Bill Yopp Co. H, 14th Regt. Ga.Inf. Pvt Holt Collier Co.I, 9th Texas Cavalry
cenantua
May 19, 2009
Mr. Barrow,
I wonder why you aren’t bothering to examine the greater issues at hand regarding the Constitution and the institution of slavery between the years of 1861-65. The troops of the USCT were by no means fighting to retain themselves under the institution of slavery under the flag of the U.S.
Furthermore, I don’t know what your point is in bringing up a handful of names that served. I can even give you names that you don’t have, but that’s not the point. We aren’t questioning that some did serve.
Kelly Barrow
May 20, 2009
If the USCT weren’t fighting for the US Constitution, can you tell me what they were fighting for?
cenantua
May 21, 2009
You can’t be serious. You actually believe that troops of the USCT were fighting to keep themselves enslaved? Is this your effort to justify part of the argument about “black Confederates” supporting thr Confederacy en masse? I, along with many others aren’t buying.
Russell Smith
May 19, 2009
Mr. Pollock,
We can debate the issue of slavery and to what degree it played in the late war and accomplish little in our search for truth. You site Grant’s point of view, but likewise I can site Lee’s point of view that the Confederacy was fighting for the constitution as originally adopted (my paraphrase). The issue I am raising it that the NAACP drafted a resolution in 1990 calling for the removal of Confederate monuments from across the South and likewise their leadership has engaged in a cultural war of historical revision to equate the Confederacy with Nazi Germany.
I have offered a few sources for the existance of black Confederates. A simple Google search will reveal more. Their decision for fighting for the Confederacy no doubt are as diverse and complicated as the many causes of the war itself. The tone of this article and of some here is to deny thier existance all together. If we are to be true in our study of history, we can not allow ourselfs to be swayed by current political idealogy. I offer the reason for thier decision to fight as survival because it is a reason that gets ignored. Let us not forget that blacks served in Washington’s army during the Revolution at a time when presumed emancipation was only something hoped for, while the British were offering it.
Craig Swain
May 19, 2009
Russell,
The tone and approach here is to simply identify one of the problems many of us have faced with regard to research on Black Confederates. I can’t stress it enough. I am accepting of the facts, but the facts must stand scrutiny. Otherwise there is no proof. We can’t start the dialog with “You can’t dispute they served” as you want to do. We must start with “show me” and “prove it.” As I said earlier, we’ve seen a handful of examples that could be interpreted different ways… So unless we are willing to accept some common definitions there’s only one way to call those – “maybe.” And beyond that where are the other 89,900 or so that we keep hearing claims about?
Craig.
Russell Smith
May 19, 2009
Mr. Swain,
With all respect, if we are to go by the standard that some posters here use (Cenantua & acwresearcher) and view them in the light of how the black Confederates were viewed by the whites and others both during and after the war, I submit for your review the photos and accounts of Blacks at UCV reunions and other accounts made at the time. If the actual Confederates could accept them among their numbers, who are we (you, I, anyone else) to discredit their service?
Likewise, you ask about applying CSA military regulations as the definition of “soldier”. We must keep in mind that the Confederate army was not the professional army that the Union army was. Just as Washington attempted to organize and train his army based on the British model, so too did the Confederate high command attempt to organize their army based of that of the US army. Nonetheless, the Confederate army was made up of many militia and irregular troops that due to the political structure the CSA was built on, were viewed first as state troops on loan to the central government. As I have stated before, the South kept very poor records. I have even found accounts of the Confederate officials destroying records for fear of government repercussions in the aftermath of the war. Because of this, we must be willing to broaden our definitions, hypothesize, and investigate. And that means investigating from any source we can find. While I applaud your scrutiny, please understand that too narrow of a definition will lead false assumptions just as too broad of a definition will. The attitude of “that’s not good enough” will only serve to give a one-sided view of our nation’s greatest conflict. I must ask, how much proof or evidence do you need?
In regards to the number of Black Confederates, that will in all likelihood, never be determined. Most Southerners have forgotten their history. Few can name their great-grandfather, let along an ancestor who lived during the Civil War. But the more we dig, the more we find.
cenantua
May 19, 2009
Mr. Smith, Hold on a second here. At what point did I say that photos or attendance at reunions was proof that black servants were soldiers? My guidelines for establishing service of blacks with the Confederate army as soldiers are not that simple.
Not to stray too far from the point of this post, but I also argue that the comparison between the Continental army and the Confederate army are not entirely accurate. By comparison, the Confederate army had many more highly trained and skilled officers in the corps than the Continental army had. Likewise, I hope you understand that the militia was a rather strange “animal” in the South at the onset of the war. I have seen where several men, even though they were enrolled in the prewar militia, considered themselves conscripts when the militia was called into service for the Confederacy.
Craig Swain
May 19, 2009
And to add, the Confederate Army was far more organized than the Continental Army. It was not a loose organization of volunteers without order or standards. To claim it was some unregulated rabble without capacity for keeping proper records flies in the face of the mountain of documents which record its wartime operations!
However I would like to use the line “we must be willing to broaden our definitions, hypothesize, and investigate. ” So in other words, we must accept the proof, sight unseen, as fact? Why is it we must weaken our standards with regard to historiography in order to prove that any significant amount of blacks served the Confederacy as line soldiers as claimed?
Again, going back to the theme of this posting, it just seems we are required to “believe” without conditions a premise that cannot be proven. I’d suggest the readers go back and watch that last bit in the video clip – believer vs skeptic – and consider that in this context. Are we not being asked here to “just believe it, trust me….”
Russell Smith
May 19, 2009
The photographs of Blacks at UCV reunions show that they were accepted by their white counterparts and I dare say, accepted as equals and fellow comrads.
True, the Confederate officer corp was indeed well trained and experienced. About 300 were West Point grads and many others had prior military experience or college education. Nonetheless, the Confederacy had to build an army from scratch. Many an officer had to get some OJT (on-the-job-training).
Men joined the militia because it had certain benefits that regular army didn’t. For example, not having to leave home for long, and the ability to resign. Needless to say, being mustered into regular service wasn’t what many of them signed up for.
My g-g-grandfather on my paternal side has been an adventure in researching. My family is 5th generation Floridian. My ancestor was a veteran of the 2nd and 3rd Seminole Wars. He is shown in the Florida Mounted Volunteers (militia). Muster rolls usually show a 3 month enlistment. On some he is a private. On others he is a corporal. On some he is a farrier (non-combat). My ancestor was an pioneer in Manatee County, on Florida’s frontier and is on the 1860 census. In July 1861, a local militia known as the 20th Florida was raised from men in Hillsborough and Manatee county. The 1860 census shows that only Manatee County had a total population of under 900 and Hillsborough with about 2000 total. Yet the 20th Florida is said to have had nearly a 1000 men. Only the Col and Lt. Col of the 20th Florida are know. No muster roll exists. The men of the 20th Florida were mustered in at Ft. Brooke (Tampa) and those of right age and health became companies E & K of the 7th Florida. Those too old, young, or poor health remained behind and garrisoned Fort Brooke. Exactly how many and for how long, I can’t find. There is no Confederate Service record on my g-g-grandfather. I thought perhaps he joined the Union forces as many locals later did. No Union records either. From all accounts, he would have been pro-Confederate considering the company he kept in later years. A local state militia was formed to combat the Union loyalist. The muster rolls of this unit is (the Fl Special Cavalry Battalion) is scetchy at best. Yet it is suppose to have had a force of 800 men. Makes me wonder how my ancestor stayed out of the war? Interestly, he fathered 6 children. The 5th was born in early 1862 and the youngest in early 1866. Makes me wonder were he was for 4 years?
Craig Swain
May 20, 2009
So if I have a photo of a relative shaking hands with Joe DiMaggio, surrounded by guys in pinstrips, is that evidence that he was accepted as an equal and fellow team member of the 1941 World Champions? Umm.. NO!
Was he a bat boy, trainer, or was he a REAL team member who played on the field? I’d need to find a Topps baseball card, a few box scores, look at the Yankee’s team roster records. Tons of supporting evidence, before the claim might be seen as valid.
So you have a photo with black men with Confederate veterans. Were those men in question laborers, teamsters, commissary staff, vendors, or were they actual soldiers who took the field? Did they hold military rank? If so where do they appear on the muster rolls? Where are their associated service records?
AND what I’m most interested in, where are their first person accounts of their service. I can’t stress this enough. If you demand that we accept, without the weight of evidence, that thousands upon thousands of blacks served as soldiers in the Confederate army, then we should see a wealth of first person accounts from them.
What I advocate is a common standard here for supporting documentation. When Robert, as he often does, chimes in about what he’s research concerning a veteran’s claim he’ll mention muster rolls, service records, pension records, census records, official reports, letters, diaries, etc. It is not one piece, but a whole portfolio of documentation. That’s proof.
And you say the Confederate Army was not organized enough to keep that data? Well that flies in the face of the storage facility full of microfilm (much now being digitized) on which just such information is recorded.
Again, my point is when discussing Black Confederates, don’t give us a “UFO sighting”: The fuzzy photo mentioned here without context, or a single eyewitness saying what they might have seen, or some reaching guess at what some person’s race may have been based on their name. Instead come to the discussion with a portfolio of documentation on the subject. Start the dialog not with “It must have been” but “Let me lay out the documentation and offer my interpretation.” You do that for half of the 90,000 number claimed, and I guarantee your book will sell!
cenantua
May 21, 2009
Russell,
You still haven’t addressed the question at hand and mere photographs alone do not satisfy the requirements for serious historical evidence. “Proof” is something that can only be established with a number of items that work together. So, cite a photo connected with other forms of evidence to make a case.
As for the militia, please stick to the subject at hand here. Nevertheless, you should understand that your views of the militia may be flawed. Most militia in Virginia were disbanded in 1862 in order to redirect men to the regular army. This was not an automatic happening however, and thus the conscription acts (three) that were more persuasive in getting men into the ranks. Reserves took the place of militia later in the war.
Russell Smith
May 20, 2009
Mr. Swain,
I see your board moderator didn’t post my last reply. Until then, your comments will not be taken seriously. In that last reply sir, document evidence was given. You won’t accept the truth if it was right in front of you. Sir, I know quite a few serious researchers, writers and academias. I will make sure they know what a fraud you are.
cenantua
May 21, 2009
Mr. Smith, Please, we all have lives. Mine simply didn’t give me a chance to approve comments yesterday. I also think you owe an apology to Craig.
Craig Swain
May 21, 2009
Russell,
I’m accepting of the truth, so long as you can provide the supporting factual evidence. My point here, that you seem to be walking past, is we must apply the same level of scrutiny to both black and white veterans, and to both Federal and Confederate. You can’t make up a new set of rules for Black Confederates.
Nor can you start the discussion, as you just tried to again, with “You must accept the truth.” History is not a discipline which records “truth” but rather “facts.” If you can’t provide “facts” then you don’t really have any “history” there for anyone to make note of.
Honestly, feel free to pass along my name to any and all serious researchers, writers, and academics. In fact, let them know I’d enjoy hearing from them on this issue. If they have, as you imply, a greater understanding of the issue, then their scholarly work can’t possibly be threatened by little old me.
Craig.
Russell Smith
May 21, 2009
Hopefully my lost post will finally get added. It seems that all that facts in the world are not good enough for some. The subject of Black Confederates has been researched by some very highly educated men and college professors. I’m sure that they would like to know that thier research doesn’t cut muster with a couple of internet blogging wanna bes.
First, Craig wants to define soldier. I feel like I am trying to define the word “is” for Bill Clinton. If you read this lost post of mine, you see that teamsters, cooks, musicians, and the like made the definition of soldier at the time. Now Craig wants to know if they fought in the ranks. Nevermind that written accounts of such are recorded. Just clink on a few of those links I included. Now that’s not good enough. Now Craig needs muster rolls and pension records. Have you tried looking up any of the names of those Black Confederates?
Please Sir, what do you want? What satisfies? Blacks who served in the Confederate Army and Navy did so in integrated units. Not segregated units like the Union.
You want muster rolls and pension apps. Is this good enough for you?
From Soldiers of Fl. 3rd Fl Co. B
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~thompson/cw/3-fl-inf/3-fl-inf-b.html
See if you can pick out the Black Confederates in this unit. They received pensions too. You may note, they are shown as privates.
cenantua
May 21, 2009
Whatever this “lost post” was, I never got it… I have approved all of your comments that I have received, but if you continue to go down this path of insults, then your comments have just come to an end. Saying “internet blogging wanna bes” just shows how shallow your argument is and to what lengths you have to go to “justify” your position. I assure you, we’re quite a bit more than “wanna bes.” Though short a PhD, I’m fairly certain I can make the cut as an historian. So, let’s get beyond this and get to what is actually history discussed with a little bit more decorum.
Have you actually read more than this post in this blog? I actually have more here that defines my position on “black Confederates” and it’s not just based on opinion. I’ve been through the documents, service records, and pensions, at least for Virginia (and some for South Carolina). I’ve seen where some blacks are in the muster rolls (some by the way, with no reference to them being listed as “black” or “colored”), and by virtue of being on the muster rolls, they at least make the initial cut as soldiers (defined in terms of having an enlistment record). Whatever motivation was behind their service, most times nobody can say with any degree of certaintly whatsoever. I am also quite familiar with the “servants pensions, at least in Virginia, and know the cut-offs that the legislators made in defining who was a veteran and who was a servant. There was a clear distinction. Under THIS definition, body servants, cooks, etc., black OR white, were not soldiers. Should they be honored for their individual sacrifices as men? Absolutely. But, as Confederates? Maybe some can be recognized individually with a good deal of supportive documentation, but calling 90,000 slaves in the service of the Confederacy “black Confederates” is a grotesque misrepresentation and those who try to sell it to the public as such only smacks of an agenda.
Craig Swain
May 21, 2009
Russell, in a nutshell, no, it is not good enough.
Your definition of “soldier,” as I’ve demonstrated above, is factually incorrect. The definition used at the time did not include teamsters, cooks, and such. When a regiment counted its number, it was the number of rifles and officer it took into battle. Not the number of mule skinners in the rear. That is different (as I pointed out above) than today. And your definition is imposing today’s logic on yesterday’s facts. Let’s get it straight, it isn’t a negotiable thing here.
You keep missing the point here. One or two black Confederates isn’t even worth writing about. Were are the 90,000 that you claim served? Frankly, I’d be impressed if you could offer credible evidence for a quarter of that number. Where are THOSE muster rolls, service records, and, with emphasis, first person narratives?
The later is the most important, in my view. You’ve said they “fought for their country.” Well the only way we might possible offer even a conjecture in that direction would be through a first person account. Otherwise, as I’ve pointed out here again and again, you are speculating on thin air. Bring in some evidence that will stand in the light of day and we have something to talk about.
Lastly, if you would like to continue this dialog, I would ask that you refrain from personal attacks. I’ve not called you names, and I’ve strictly offered criticism of the points you’ve made. I don’t know you, and might not recognize you on the street, but my SOUTHERN upbringing tells me I should be amicable regardless of your situation. I would call upon you to also recall some level of decorum is required for even the most contentious debate among gentlemen.
Russell Smith
May 22, 2009
Re-post 3rd attempt
Mr. Swain,
Once again, you have jumped to a conclusion without understanding a word that I have written. Mr. Swain you state in an above post that you have an open mind to many possibilities but an open mind is a questioning mind. How you conclude that I’ve asked you to accept anything sight unseen as proof or evidence is beyond me. The only thing that I have asked is that you use any and every source possible, and as you investigate, understand the surrounding circumstances. In my story about one of my ancestors, I have unearthed a world of history not otherwise found by using sources such as deed records, tax rolls, family recollections and many more. No where have I stated that the Confederate army did not keep records. I merely point out that their records are not as well kept as that of the Union army, and likewise, that the Confederate army standards, though based on that of the US army, was not as stringent as the former. Therefore, a greater degree of latitude must be taken into account in any serious study of the Confederacy. Since yesterday I have read some of your posts on other web-sites on this same subject. Based off those posts, you sir are not a man with an open mind. You sir are a man with a mind made up. All the evidence and sources by men more accomplished than I will never satisfy you. You sir are doing yourself a great injustice. You are not allowing yourself to further learn or gain knowledge. That is sad.
Since nothing seems to satisfy your definition of “soldier” perhaps I should submit this for your review, which is of course, if you can for one moment put aside your prejudice:
IN the fullest sense, any man in the military service who receives pay, whether sworn in or not, is a soldier,
because he is subject to military law. Under this general head, laborers, teamsters, sutlers, chaplains, &c. are soldiers. – From Customs of Service for Non-Commissioned Officers and Soldiers, by Gen. August V. Kautz, USA (1864)
Might I add that the above is a US Army standard? Therefore, if you can except that more blacks served in supporting roles than actual combat, then by this definition, they are soldiers too. Correct me if I am wrong, but you did state that you are about establishing standard definitions, did you not? I also find it interesting that photographs show black men in Confederate uniform. Since when would a “contractor” be issued or allowed to wear a uniform? Also, all sources I come across show that blacks received the same pay as whites. Again, why would a “contractor” be paid the same as a soldier?
Now you want to know about blacks fighting in Confederate line of battle, do you not? Rather than re-invent the wheel, how about these examples that a simple search on yahoo produced?
http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm
http://www.scv-kirby-smith.org/Black%20Confederate.htm
http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Petersburg_Black-CSA.html
http://www.rebelgray.com/blacksincombat.htm
These are just a few of the many that I have come across. You will notice that this stuff isn’t made up. Each web-site offers documented references worthy of any scholarly work. If you’re not too lazy, I suggest you read up. If this cannot satisfy your need for proof, nothing will. I am convinced that you Mr. Swain are given to ideology and not a student of history.
cenantua
May 22, 2009
Mr. Smith,
You were given fair warning on more than one occasion, but since you persist in making slights as a method of backing-up your argument, that’s all the space you are going to take up in this blog.
Craig Swain
May 22, 2009
Russell,
For the record, I have a degree in history. I have studied the Civil War off and on for twenty years. I say off and on because for some of that time I’ve served my country overseas.
Of interest to your analogy above, in my last trip overseas I was not a soldier, but rather a contractor. I was issued a uniform. I was paid by our government to do a job supporting the war effort. My pay grade was made equivalent to a government employee who would normally work the same job (i.e. I had a GS equivalency rating while on the contract). Thus, if you were to rule it, I am now eligible to tack that “contractor” time onto my service record when discussing benefits with the Veterans Administration.
Of course that is silly! But it is exactly the type of logic twisting that you are doing here. Something is, that isn’t, and you will not stand to listen to alternatives.
I’ve stood shoulder to shoulder in archives with researchers from the SCV, SUV, military historians, and professional historians. But I’ve never, ever, been accused of being close-minded. If anything, they would relate I often think a bit too far out of the box. But regardless of where I’d like the research to go, my training always brings me back to locate the facts. I seek to clear speculations before saying the case can hold water.
Again, the purpose of my posting was not to prove or disprove that any blacks served in the Confederate army. As I’ve said many times before, there undoubtedly were (and the next point that should be raised logically is context of the service NOT that such proves that the Confederacy was absolved of the sin of slavery).
Instead, my post was simply to point out the leaps of logic and the speculations that we all must endure while listening to those who make the case for “Black Confederates.”
I’ll even go one further in that analogy here. IF, and I stress IF, service in the Confederate army were considered a prosecutable crime (say IF again), then we would find few cases where a black man were actually convicted of such. The case evidence is all too often thin.
Harry Smeltzer
May 22, 2009
Fellas, calm down. We’re getting all excited over semantics. Look you say potato, I say potato. Ummm…guess that doesn’t work in print. Blacks and whites served in the Confederate army. So what’s the difference if they served as free men or not, if they served voluntarily or not, if they carried a loaded gun or not. You’re arguing over the word “soldier”. That seems petty. Let’s just call them all soldiers and “honor” them all for their contribution to the domestic contingency operation.
And while we’re at it, we can further calm things down if we just call all those slaves who stayed home on the plantation “employees”.
cenantua
May 22, 2009
LOL… what’s that credit card commercial…. “and one of Harry’s incredible tension-breaking remarks… priceless.” Ok, we need to grab a brew on that one fellas.
Craig Swain
May 22, 2009
“if they carried a loaded gun or not. ”
I’m thinking of the Russians who were sent into Stalingrad with the orders, “first man shoot the gun… if the first man is killed, second man pick up the gun and shoot!” Ok, Harry, you have a point there!
cenantua
May 22, 2009
Oh, and isn’t there some type of rule… like the guy who cracks the first funny is the one who is buying? I guess Harry’s buying then, right? 🙂
Kevin
May 22, 2009
Harry,
That was absolutely brilliant. LMFAO!!!!