Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Slaves as Southern soldiers? - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 07:00 pm
   
41st Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ole-

  I think we're pretty much in agreement. Most black men who contributed to the Confederate war effort in concert with the Confederate military were not soldiers. They were mostly teamsters, laborers, cooks, and servants of various kinds. If they are the ones we are counting, then they numbered in many thousands. Many times that number helped the war effort through their labors on the home front.

 It has been pointed out that blacks could make more money as: "independent contractors" than they could as private soldiers. That to me makes those who were Confederate soldiers even more remarkable. They might have been a small number percentage wise, but they were there and they fought. As Johan says, they should be honored.

  I also agree that you don't have to be a member of a combat branch to be a soldier. Many jobs that need to be done don't require combat skills. I was in a combat branch of the Army, and among those I most admired were medics. Some of them were conscientious objectors, but they went onto battlefields without weapons and saved the lives of soldiers. Thats all that mattered to me.



 Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 07:19 pm
   
42nd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama46 wrote: You claim to be the champion of the soldier. do you consider this man less of a soldier because he is not depicted as being armed? How many truck drivers do you suppose there in the armed forces today? Cooks? clerks? Technicians of various types? Are they not soldiers? Are they sort of quasi soldiers or full brothers in arms? when you were in the military (air force, correct), were you of combat arms or notthis quite frankly disturbs me and I believe you owe one hell of a lot of soldiers an apologyThat is quite a straw man ;)HankC



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 07:31 pm
   
44th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top


Both Steiner and Douglass had agendas that did not mind twisting (or making up) facts to suit their purposes. The same is true of turn-of-the-century southern organizations who erected and planned monuments to the 'faithful slave', for example.

 

Anyone oragnized, mustered, trained, drilled, supplied, paid (and had the usual forms filed in triplicate) was certainly a soldier.

 

There is little reason to believe that southern blacks in partisan units *were not* soldiers, but neither is there much reason to think that their white comrades *were*.

 

Thousands of Union civilians erected fieldworks at Cincinnati and Harrisburg, among others, during emergencies. No one considers them soldiers...

 

 

HankC



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 09:44 pm
   
46th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama46 wrote: Hank et al...

seems to me that what is being said is that the definition of who was a soldier is whoever y'all say it is and eveyone else needs to be quiet and fall into line.

That isn't true.



 Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 09:47 pm
   
47th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

javal1 wrote:
Once again a promising thread is ruined. I'm not taking anyone's side, but if you people can't learn to discuss a subject without jumping to personal comments and demands for apologies, then don't discuss at all.

Pam, I apologize that another of your well thought-out threads got sidetracked. I can't tell you how fed up I am with this.


Javal and an extension of the apology to Pam, once again I apolgize. I said before that I would not reply to Bama. I backslid and did.



"Johan,
You claim to be the champion of the soldier. do you consider this man less of a soldier because he is not depicted as being armed? How many truck drivers do you suppose there in the armed forces today? Cooks? clerks? Technicians of various types? Are they not soldiers? Are they sort of quasi soldiers or full brothers in arms? when you were in the military (air force, correct), were you of combat arms or not
this quite frankly disturbs me and I believe you owe one hell of a lot of soldiers an apology"


I took offense at being accused of something that is a load of hooey, and not for the first time from him. Bama enjoys baiting me and I fell for it. My apologies to all; there are no excuses.

Last edited on Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 09:55 pm by Johan Steele



 Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 10:17 pm
   
48th Post
Sgt. Biggenbottom
Blowhard


Joined: Sun Oct 26th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top



 Posted: Mon Nov 3rd, 2008 11:26 pm
   
49th Post
pamc153PA
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Boyertown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 407
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Apology accepted, but. . .

Do we have to give up this thread, or can we take a deep breath and continue?  Because this has been one of the most informative ones I've read lately, and it's opened up more questions for me than answers. How about it?

Pam



 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 12:04 am
   
50th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It seems that only one official view is accepted on this thread.
Somebody ought to inform Javal, then. I'm reasonably certain he hasn't adopted an acceptable, official view. "Black Confederates" is one of those insoluble topics that simply will not go away. The discussion usually ends with the link you posted.

Until it starts again at another place in another time.

ole



 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 12:12 am
   
51st Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Do we have to give up this thread, or can we take a deep breath and continue?  Because this has been one of the most informative ones I've read lately, and it's opened up more questions for me than answers. How about it?
I vote for the taking a deep breath and continuing. It is an interesting subject and much discussed on all the CW boards (except those who have grown tired of watching the tread deteriorate into personal invective).

Us olders tend to forget that there are those who really want to explore the subject during which they can make up their own minds. Hang in there; this, too, shall pass. (Until it pops up again.)

ole



 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 01:32 am
   
52nd Post
Dixie Girl
Southern Belle


Joined: Thu Oct 25th, 2007
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 850
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Sgt. Biggenbottom wrote:

=+++)(90:D



____________________
War Means Fighting And Fighting Means Killing - N. B. Forrest When war does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Stonewall Jackson


 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 01:56 am
   
53rd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

pamc153PA wrote: Here's one to ponder and discuss. . 

Should slaves have been allowed to/been drafted to fight for the South? What ramifications might this have had, for the South, for the North? Would it have made a difference if this had occurred earliy in the war, or later?  Would it have changed the outcome of the war at all? Etc., etc.

Pam


 

Deep breath...

Pam, I can think of several impediments off the top of my head.

The south had a tremendous infrastructure in place to maintain the institution of slavery. Extending this to the military would tax already scarce resources and morale.



Shifting the stronger slaves to armed military service leaves the weaker ones in an even greater support role. Given the history of the last 150 years, I suspect many of the slaves would be denied ‘induction’ on medical grounds. IIRC, even during the great crisis of WWII, 25% of draftees were deferred on medical grounds, mostly due to the effects of the great depression

The idea of an armed slave was counter to many threads woven through southern society.

 

HankC



 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 02:23 am
   
54th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It seems that much of this discussion has devolved into how the word "soldier" is defined. How one does define that word would have a strong bearing on what the answer to Pam's question would be.

My original answer is written with the idea in mind of a uniformed soldier  who holds official rank and is armed to fight in battles and skirmishes. I do believe that is what Cleburne had in mind when he suggested arming soldiers to fight because that was exactly what the Confederacy lacked--fighting men for infantry, cavalry and artillery.

The Confederacy was already using slaves and freedmen of color for teamsters, cooks, servents, and many other support functions. What Cleburne wanted was more fighting men. That this is true can be found in orders from Generals such as Lee, himself, who believed too many men were "hiding" in support functions as teamsters, for example, when they could be of far greater service at the front  fighting.

That said, this discussion seems to have to come to the point at which some want to call the support men "soldiers."  In contrast,  I classify most of them as what the military uses today--civilians working for the military.

 A soldier is one who wears a uniform, has a rank, is trained and drilled, belongs to a specific organizational unit, follows the chain of command, is committed to the military branch to which he belongs by a specified contract for terms and length of duty, is governed by military law, military justice and systems of courts martial. An exception to the uniform requirement would be soldiers engaged in covert ops. That is my amateur's definition.

One way to judge the numbers of slave-soldiers would be to read Confederate hospital records of injured Black uniformed soldiers. Another would be to examine pay records for companies and regiments. Especially valuable would be state Confederate pension records. How many Black soldiers qualified for a Confederate pension for their wartime service?   

 

Last edited on Tue Nov 4th, 2008 02:24 am by CleburneFan



 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 03:00 am
   
55th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

How many Black soldiers qualified for a Confederate pension for their wartime service?  
 
I have seen verifiable evidence of 129 in one state. (But then, this recollection is old and I couldn't begin to point to the records. But you get the idea.) Those who might have actually been rifle-musket toting Confederates were at the time demoted to musicians, teamsters, orderlies or cooks. We're now engaged in trying to recreate all of them as loyal adherents. I'm going to figure that there were some, but not nowhere near as many as some would like us to believe.

Until someone has anything to add.

ole



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 03:30 am
   
57th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Chicken!



 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 06:05 am
   
58th Post
Sgt. Biggenbottom
Blowhard


Joined: Sun Oct 26th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

the total, this year alone, is now : 7



 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 06:22 pm
   
59th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 330
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In the book Retreat from Gettysburg by Kent Masterson Brown, he writes that the wagoners for the Confederate advance on Gettysburg were black and based his estimate of 7000 to 10000 slaves on the size of the wagon train.

I would say though, these wagoners were rented out by their masters for the job.  My only question to this is why didn't huge numbers of slaves escape instead of going back South?  There were some that escaped but there were also some Confederate white soldiers that stayed north.



 Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 08:17 pm
   
60th Post
The Iron Duke
Member


Joined: Tue Jul 29th, 2008
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 333
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It was not unusual for slaves to aid the Roman army during their campaigns. Are these men "soldiers" too?



____________________
"Cleburne is here!" meant that all was well. -Daniel Harvey Hill


 Current time is 08:26 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4378 seconds (13% database + 87% PHP). 34 queries executed.