This is something that I have thought about since I first saw the marker at Mercersburg…
We know that white civilians (residents of the town) were seized in Mercersburg in October 1862 and sent South to POW camps. However, does anyone else find it interesting that the blacks seized in Mercersburg in 1863 (during the Gettysburg Campaign) were not treated in the same manner? Think about this a bit… this is interesting… there is talk about blacks being taken during the Gettysburg Campaign and being sent South, back into slavery… but is their evidence that they were put into slavery? Really, if someone has specific examples (individual stories of named Pennsylvania black civilians being sold into slavery after being sent South), please let me know as I am very curious about this now. Of the blacks listed on the marker in Mercersburg, I’ve only been able to track down “post-seizure” information about Amos Barnes, but he was not treated like the white civilians seized in October 1862 (I am not sure what happened to the others named, if treated in the same way, sent to a POW camp, or sold into slavery). Instead of being sent to a POW camp, Barnes was sent South (to Richmond) and put to work at Camp Winder. Why weren’t the whites treated in the same manner? On the other hand, if Barnes was treated in this manner, and not sold into slavery, why were other blacks seized during the Gettysburg Campaign sent South and sold into slavery? Obviously, it took some effort to get Barnes “released,” therefore, he was a “captive,” but he wasn’t sold into slavery. Please understand, I’m not trying to downplay the terror and shock that blacks must have felt upon being seized and sent South, but in the stories of blacks being sent South and sold back into slavery, are we dealing with “shuffled” or “exagerated” Civil War memory?
Cenantua's Blog 
Sherree Tannen
May 28, 2009
Hi Robert,
I don’t have any specific examples for you. I do have some conclusions reached by two historians whom I respect, however–you and Marc! Did I read the following statement wrong?
“As a comment to my May 5 post about Mercersburg, Marc asked if the African-American community there was impacted during the 1863 campaign. Of course, as we know and as Marc indicates, the Army of Northern Virginia rounded-up blacks during that campaign and sent them South “back” into slavery.”
Ok. I am confused. Any clarification, when you get the chance, would be appreciated. Thanks. Sherree
cenantua
May 28, 2009
Hi Sherree,
Good point. I’ll recap…
We know blacks were seized and sent South, but… I’m trying to find actual evidence that the blacks seized and sent South were sold into slavery. It appears that this has been the standing story through time, but is there evidence that it actually happened? It also concerns me that we may be re-telling a legend as truth, without taking the time to verify with individual stories. To me, learning that Mercersburg’s Amos Barnes was not sold into slavery challenges the belief that blacks seized by Confederates were sold into slavery. Barnes was put (forced) into a Confederate labor force (indeed, another challenge to the idea of “black Confederates”), but there is no evidence of him being made a slave.
Craig Swain
May 31, 2009
Robert,
I recall reading in a work by a respected historian (and I’ve spent a day trying to recall who!) that the seizure of blacks was in line with the fugitive slave laws. In other words, all persons suspected of being fugitives were sent south for the appropriate checks.
Were that the case, there would not be a “sold into slavery,” but perhaps a “returned to the owner.” Not that the issue was much different to those seized. But the terms used in newspapers and perhaps official documents would have been different.
cenantua
June 1, 2009
Craig,
From the account that Marc brought up, it looks like some didn’t wait until they were sent South (taking into consideration the “take your pick” quote from one incident).
Did Marc come up with the name of the historian you were thinking about?
Sherree Tannen
May 29, 2009
Robert,
Thank you!
I will not repeat this assertion again. I thought that the evidence was in, and that the historiography concerning the subject was settled. The more I read, the more I discover just how complex the Civil War truly was, and why we are still discussing it in 2009 as if it took place yesterday.
Thanks again for answering. Talk to you soon.
Sherree
cenantua
May 29, 2009
Hi Sherree, The evidence might be in some of the books produced (and if so, I’m interested in hearing from those who might know, having read the books), but I have a feeling most of what has been begins and ends at the point of blacks being seized. It will be interesting to hear from others who might have evidence and, as I mentioned in my reply to James, it might be that some actually were enslaved, and some were forced into labor roles without being enslaved, maybe. In either case, I can’t imagine what must have been felt by blacks when seized, especially for those who may have never lived in the South.
David Tatum Jr
May 29, 2009
Well the Dred Scott decision backed the confederate actions as did the fugitive slave act. Both were part of the laws of the UNITED STATES /
and if I have my time line correct. The actions were done before the Emancipation proclamation which would not have effected the Blacks in question. The worthless proclamation only was applied to areas where Lincoln had no control in the first place.
General Sherman kidnapped 600 women and children in Georgia shipped them north to work as slaves in tent factories.
When will you get the message ?
SLAVERY WAS THE SIN OF A NATION !!!!!!
Dave Tatum
Suffolk VA.
cenantua
May 29, 2009
Mr. Tatum, First, as one making a comment here for the first time, I find the manner in which you submitted your comment rather rude and offering little to the discussion. Second, when did I say that slavery wasn’t the sin of the nation? Please reconsider your approach to the question at hand (as presented in the post) and submit your comments with a bit more decorum.
James F. Epperson
May 29, 2009
OK, I’ve argued/discussed this a lot online, and I wrote my article for CWT on the subject. There is no hard evidence of these folks being sent back to slavery. The conduct of some of the units in Imboden’s command suggests, well, it is hard to discern what it suggests 😉 The story of the chaplain in charge of the 50 blacks liberated at Greencastle suggests he considered them *his* property. What other motive would there be for seizing them?
cenantua
May 29, 2009
Hi James, Well, as I mentioned, the story of Amos Barnes doesn’t support the idea that they were sold into slavery. Granted he is but one man and offers but one story. I wish I knew what happened to the other free blacks of Mercersburg after they were sent South. Nonetheless, I don’t suggest that one man sets the standard, but the one story does stand in opposition to what has been the traditional story. It might be, like many other things we encounter, that some were sold into slavery, some were seized and simply considered property from the get-go (whether they were actually free men or escaped slaves) and some were forced into labor, but we need to find more proof.
James F. Epperson
May 30, 2009
More proof would be nice, but I doubt it exists. Some of the blacks seized at Gettysburg clearly *thought* they were going into slavery, but that is hardly definitive.
Marc Ferguson
May 31, 2009
Hi Robert,
I agree completely with your cautious approach to this question. To know what really happened, some research has to be done and we should be careful about jumping to conclusions based on what we think we know. What I do “know” about the subject is based upon reading a few secondary sources, and of course the primary sources they cite, including accounts by Sears, Trudeau, and an article on the subject by Jim Epperson. I haven’t gone back to those sources to refresh my memory, but my recollection is that the seizure of blacks was justified, at least partly, as recovering escaped property. Some of the primary accounts cited by these authors, again if memory serves, seem to indicate the intention of taking and distributing as property blacks who were captured. I recall the account of one Confederate officer who says he was offered his pick. I will check on these details later. I think Jim’s point a good one that blacks feared they were be taken to be sold into slavery.
best,
Marc
Sherree Tannen
May 29, 2009
Oh lol, Robert,
He said, then he said, and he said he said.
I think I am going to take the week-end off from the blogosphere. Hi James! David, WHEN YOU WRITE IN CAPITAL LETTERS IT IS LIKE YOU ARE SCREAMING. Please lower your voice and maybe we can hear you. Sherree
Marc Ferguson
May 31, 2009
I looked at Sears’ Gettysburg book, and he has accounts of blacks being captured by Confederate cavalry and infantry and sent South. He cites contemporary sources, Mercersburg resident Professor Philip Schaff and Confederate Colonel William S. Christian, as writing that the blacks were being sent into slavery. Schaff wrote in his diary of “negroes captured and carried back into slavery (even such as I know to have been born and raised on free soil).” Christian wrote to his wife on June 28: “We took a lot of negroes yesterday. I was offered my choice but as I could not get them back home I would not take them.” Schaff’s statement is evidence that blacks were captured, but clearly tells us nothing of their fate. Christian’s statement at least appears to give credence to the intent of sending blacks south into slavery, but again tells us nothing of the actual fate of those captured. Sears makes the assumption that this is the intent, and says so in a couple of places. For example, in discussing Albert Jenkins’ cavalry raids into Chambersburg in mid-June, Sears writes: “The roads became choked with dusty columns of refugees, many of them runaway slaves and free blacks trying to evade these outriders of slavery. Those who did not flee quickly enough were ridden down were ridden down and rounded up by Jenkins’s troopers. Some fifty blacks were formed into a coffle and marched south to be sold into bondage.” (p. 82) Sears doesn’t cite any sources, that I can see, for the actual fates of those sent south, so perhaps he is jumping to conclusions. After he cites the letter of Colonel Christian, Sears writes: The number of free or fugitive blacks condemned to slavery during these weeks can only be estimated, but widespread testimony suggests that it was in the hundreds.” (p. 112) I would love to know the fates of those captured, and how many, if any, free blacks were sold into slavery.
Marc
Marc Ferguson
May 31, 2009
Just to be clear, I know that these accounts from Sears, with which I’m sure you’re familiar, don’t tell us whether free blacks were sold into slavery, but in fact serve to highlight the legitimacy of your concern “that we may be re-telling a legend as truth.” The question is, have the fears and assumptions of those who witnessed the capture of blacks in Pennsylvania in 1863 come to be accepted as fact? As you say, only the stories of those actually sent south can answer this.
Marc
cenantua
June 1, 2009
Marc,
Thanks for bringing some good information to the discussion. This might be one of those loops from which we will never escape (as long as there is nothing showing what happened after being seized) Yet, it seems that, if some were taken South and placed into slavery, there should be something, even if is nothing more than snippits from Southern newspapers mentioning the recent “arrival of blacks from Pa.” (just as an example). I have no doubt that the fears of those taken must have been centered on the thought of being forced into slavery (I imagine it must have been especially traumatic for those who had never been South of the Mason-Dixon) and had never been in bondage. I can even imagine white Northern civilians expecting the worse for the blacks seized. Nevertheless, yes, it all comes back to “where is the evidence” that some were actually placed in bondage after being seized.
I’ve got another source I’m going to check today, but this focuses on the ’62 Maryland Campaign.
Thanks again Marc.
Craig Swain
June 1, 2009
Robert,
I was thinking of either Franklin or Stampp. The context was less that of Civil War history, but a discussion of slavery. The author I am thinking of went out of the way to illustrate the seizure of free blacks as one part racism, but more importantly an extension of the “property” laws.
Keep in mind that the fugitive slave laws were not designed as the mechanism to return lost slaves, but rather to require law enforcement officials to cooperate with someone looking for lost slaves. A fugitive’s status would always be determined in the jurisdiction where the alleged escape took place, NOT where the slave was captured.
As such, would it not make sense for the Confederate Army to send seized blacks south, and then released if no claims were made?
On a side note, I’ve always thought the Fugitive laws to be rather counter to the “states right” mantra. The laws, as written, sanctioned the violation of property and civil rights without recourse (i.e. law enforcement officials were able to trespass, and if need be detain individuals for “obstruction” all without any legal review). The state where the fugitive was found was required to wave any of their local statutes to allow the enforcement of Federal, or in some ways even other states, laws.
Sort of lets the air out of that balloon now doesn’t it?
Robert Moore
June 1, 2009
Craig, O.K., but even if elements of the ANV were acting under the fugitive slave laws, I think the lines were blurred between being an army and serving as an agent of the fugitive slave laws. Is there any information to show that Lee approved these actions (the taking of blacks to be sent South)? If not, why (apparently) did some Confederate units engage in this practice while there is not record of others doing it? It seems that there were independent actions, and I wonder if the taking of blacks was intensified with certain units because of the origin of the particular units (a unit originating from an area where slavery had more prominence as an institution). Also, Amos Barnes’ story shows us that they weren’t interested in releasing the blacks taken, whether a former slave or not.
cenantua
June 2, 2009
I need to be more specific… I mean, there was a circular issued within the ANV regarding the taking of blacks. More to follow…
cenantua
June 2, 2009
Craig, I did some looking last night and there appears to have been a circular issued in 1863 regarding the “capture” of blacks. The author of the source that I am using makes several claims, but the footnotes aren’t as extensive as I would like.
Sherree Tannen
June 2, 2009
Robert,
Following this conversation has been very educational. Thanks to you, Marc, and Craig for exploring this subject. Sherree
cenantua
June 2, 2009
Thanks Sherree, This is educational to me as well. There are several points that are tied to the seizing of blacks that leaves me with additional questions. The differences in the Confederate seizings of civilians, white and black, is quite interesting.
Jimmy Price
June 5, 2009
Robert,
Have you ever seen the following newspaper story? Hope it helps to some degree:
“From the Richmond Sentinel, 8/8/1863
Arrival of Prisoners. – On yesterday, 100 Yankees, the last instalment of the Gettysburg prisoners arrived from Staunton, and were quartered at the Libby.
We also note the arrival of 65 negroes, captured by Stewart on the Pennsylvania border. – They were incarcerated in Castle Thunder.”
cenantua
June 5, 2009
Excellent! Thanks Jimmy!
David G. Smith
November 24, 2010
Robert–
Thanks for your continued interest in this question. Unfortunately, when I published my “Race and Retaliation” piece, I was under strict page limitations. All of the material about what happened to African Americans seized in Pennsylvania hit the cutting room floor. It will be in my book, “On the Edge of Freedom: The Fugitive Slave Issue in South Central Pennsylvania, 1820-1870,” due out in Fall 2011 I hope. Consequently, I can’t say too much, but here is a little. You have researched Amos Barnes – he is the most well documented. What happened in 1863, and were blacks sold back into slavery? My take is that what happened is the Confederate army leadership tried to be somewhat conscientious about things. There was a policy for “arrested” fugitive slaves that the Army of Northern Virginia promulgated beginning in January 1863 (citation in the “Race and Retaliation” piece). It seems rather than returning them to owners, Confederate officers had been keeping some as body servants. The policy said they were supposed to go to training camps, to be held until they were claimed. And at least some Pennsylvania free blacks were sent to Confederate prisons where they worked as laborers.
Were African Americans seized in Pennsylvania and sold into slavery? I believe so. We have anecdotal accounts from Union prisoners who moved south after Gettysburg reporting seeing Confederate soldiers selling African Americans to slave traders who were operating just behind the lines. That wasn’t what was supposed to happen – they were supposed to go back to camps to be reclaimed by their owners – but soldiers are not always controllable, and some of the soldiers (partisans) thought that they were lawfully able to profit from plunder they took in Pennsylvania. In the Colonel Christian acc0unt, his soldiers offer him his share, suggesting that possibly they intended to profit from the captures. In addition, some private citizens followed the army to recapture blacks – we know of at least one instance in Maryland – and some apparently “off-duty” soldiers (ie convalescing) also joined the army moving north to recapture slaves. All of this is in the “Race and Retaliation,” but I know some of the pages are missing on the Google Books version.
I want to let you and your readers know of a new piece I have, which mentions the captures briefly. It’s called ” ‘Clear the Valley”: The Shenandoah Valley and the Genesis of the Gettysburg Campaign.” As a Valley native, you might find it particularly interesting. It’s in the October 2010 Journal of Military History, which can be purchased from their website, or you can just order a PDF of the article – although I haven’t gotten my PDF yet. A local college library, particularly if they are interested in military history, also might have it. In it I argue that the situation in the Valley was one often over-looked motivator to the campaign, and the capture of African Americans could in one sense be seen as restoring a vitally needed labor force to that area – although, as my other work makes clear, I don’t think it was the only motivation at work. Maybe I can say more about this new article in a subsequent post. Thanks again for your work keeping the dialogue on this going.
Robert Moore
November 24, 2010
David,
Thanks so much for the comment and sneak peek! Looking forward to reading more. I’m mobile right now, but would love to discuss this further. Any chance we can have some sort of advance release interview for posting here?
David G. Smith
January 28, 2013
Robert–
My book, On the Edge of Freedom, was published in December. In it I address the fate of the African Americans a little more. It must be granted that all of this evidence is a little sketchy and often rests on only one or two documents. It seems that Lee’s army pretty much assumed that all African Americans they seized were escaped slaves. One newspaper commented that “[t]hey have no Negroes in Pennsylvania,” when in reality, many African Americans lived in Pennsylvania, some near the border, where their numbers were swelled by escaped slaves during the war.
There is an exception to this lackadaisical approach – near Greencastle, a town councilmen was taken around to vouch for captured African Americans, that they were local residents. In other places, that distinction may not have been made.
It appears that most of the African Americans seized in Pennsylvania were sent back to the Shenandoah Valley. This is where Lee’s army was also sending seized livestock and horses. Apparently the African Americans went to Winchester where slaveowners could come and claim them as their escaped slaves. Then at least some of them may have been sent Staunton for a similar procedure. Lucy Buck, a girl in the Valley, says that the procedure was to be for the women and children to be claimed and the men sent to Richmond to work on the fortifications. Whether that last part is what actually happened, I am not sure, but some African Americans who were seized in Pa. were sent on to prison camps in Richmond. In Confederate prisoner lists, you can see the occassional African American from the summer of 1863 listed as “Free negro captured in Pennsylvania” or “Negro captured in Pennsylvania claiming to be free.” In truth, this is only a few individuals. However, there are other names under them on the list, of which some match up to names of African Americans found in the 1860 Franklin County (Pa.) census.
Confederate prison commissioner Isaac Carrington at one point proposed that the women who were being held be assigned to work in prison laundries, hospital laundries, or work like that. Franklin County resident Jacob Hoke, in a lesser known work than his Great Invasion, states that a young boy work as a messenger/runner/errand boy, and another African American worked as a chef. Look for Hoke’s book Historical Reminiscences – a reprint edition was published about 30 years ago.
As the Union army closed in on Richmond in the summer of 1864, some prisoners were sent elsewhere. The prisons were already overcrowded from the influx of POWs from the Overland Campaign. In late July, at least some of the Pennsylvania African Americans were sent to the prison camp in Salisbury (this order was a real find for me, as most of the volume behind it had been destroyed, probably in the fall of Richmond). Then in November, the commandant of Salisbury was making inquiries as to what to do with them “negroes confined in Salisbury.” A footnotes states that they were “brought from Pennsylvania by CS Army.” I think Ted Alexander first found this reference. The Confederate exchange commissioner, Robert Ould, says that he could make use of them, probably to try and exchange for Confederates.
I am not sure that I ever claimed that African Americans captured in Pennsylvania were sold into slavery. We have at least one account where they were, based on the observation of a Union prisoner. But with some of them, the Confederate authorities tried to be conscientious and held them as prisoners. The case of Amos Barnes you have discussed. It would probably be unusual for the African Americans prisoners not to be put to labor while they were being held.
Thanks for your interest in this question. I would be happy to discuss this further if you like. My book is too expensive for most readers to purchase, and this discussion only makes up four pages. They may be able to ask their nearby academic library to get a copy, however.
David G. Smith
Robert Moore
January 28, 2013
Thanks for commenting, David. Your book sounds fascinating, and will need to go on my “to be purchased” list. I wonder how this sort of thing may have inspired African-Americans in lower PA to enlist… and how it may have made others more concerned about enlisting and leaving families behind in the area, and susceptible to being taken away.