Thanks but this comment has absolutely nothing to do with the content of Carmichael’s essay. I have no problem at all with 100,000 black Confederate heroes. Just get the primary documentation (wartime) and I will be satisfied. In the meantime let’s just try to figure out what it is we are talking about when analyzing the roles that slaves played in Confederate ranks.

Simon Schama, a historian from our time, tells us “that history should never be confused with nostalgia. It is not to glorify the dead but to teach and inspire the living to new and better things. It is our cultural bloodstream. It is the secret ingredient that defines who we are and what we are capable of. It tells us let go of the past even as we honor it. We should lament what is lamentable and celebrate what should be celebrated. And if history reveals itself as a patriot, so be it.”

So we know that there was Neptune. At a moment that was not planed he ended up as a hero. No body wanted him to be a hero. The North did not want him because the whole business of freeing oppressed people gets to look a little sheepish. In fact the North does not want any Black Confederates! The South has a way of life that holds all Blacks to be evolutionary sub to the White race; they don’t want Neptune either. I think that some people today have this same sad logic. Poor Neptune could have been as brave as Jove himself but no one will ever give that distinction to Neptune. In fact Neptune is an embarrassment for both the North and the South. I suspect they would prefer him dead. I say if history reveals any Black Confederate as a patriot, so be it.

Gregg Jones

Before we talk about numbers we have to be clear about what exactly we are talking about. That is why Carmichael’s essay is instructive because it takes us beyond the ridiculous notion that large numbers served as official soldiers. Rather, we are talking about blacks who were present as slaves. No doubt, a few were able to serve openly or were able to hide their racial identities, but it looks like they were the exception to the rule. I recommend that you read Bruce Levine’s _Confederate Emancipation_ as a place to start on this subject. Thanks for the comment.

It is a great topic that has my interest.

Thankd for the explanation ans suggestion for further reading. I have a better grasp on how slaves were (more accurately were not) counted on Confederat muster rolls. I’ll have to go check out the article as well.

Brett

I think you misunderstand me and my reasons behind commenting here and I encourage you to read an earlier comment I made about Charles Brown (not to mention the bulk of my posts on my own blog). As I stated, had there not been a 1920s newspaper clipping (that I ran across a few years ago) that gave a brief biographical sketch of one Charles Brown, I would have never thought to mesh that with the enlistment of one Charles Brown in the Combined Service Records of Co. K, of the 10th Virginia Infantry on June 5, 1864. I didn’t make this up, it’s there in the actual records and I’m quite sure I’m capable of sifting through data and interpreting Civil War service records.

Yet, there is nothing else in the CSR to show anything about his service, and more importantly anything to show that he was black or a slave. Whether enlistments of slaves were illegal or not, the bottom line is that there is a record of this man enlisting (and, incidentally, neither the newspaper clipping or the enlistment record shows whether he was dark skinned or mulatto). Now, for what it’s worth, from the date of enlistment there is no evidence that he remained in the ranks, and for all I know, the enlistment may have either been symbolic appreciation for his “service” as a body servant up to that point, or shot down after the fact as not acceptable. I do know that there is no record of a pension for Brown.

Then too, I recently posted on my own blog about a free black who was forced into the service of the Confederacy, but for a specific period of time for a specific purpose. The point of my posting was to show that his service, even as a driver of a wagon for the Confederacy, was anything but voluntary and that he lived under what appears to be regular threats against his life if he did not cooperate and serve the Confederacy. The Southern Loyalists claim that he filed reveals a part of the foundation upon which I draw my belief that free blacks in the ranks seems less likely (and I mentioned this earlier).

Whether or not you “give a fig” about honoring service, if a person decides to honor service, that is up to them (and is the mission of groups like the SCV and SUVCW; the SUVCW being a rare entity in that it was Congressionally chartered – yes, you read that right – with the thought that rendering honors to Union soldiers is part of their responsibility). It can ONLY BE OUR HOPE that ANY honors rendered are done so with a good base understanding of the facts and not based on a blanket perception (“misperception” is probably more accurate) that just because somebody served, that he (or, dare I say… “she”) was necessarily “gung-ho” for the “Cause,” whatever that cause may have been. Sadly, misperceptions of spirit and motivation are rampant in rendering honors, whether that be for white Confederate, black Confederates, white Union soldiers and sailors or black Union soldiers or sailors. While all of this can be difficult to swallow, it is painfully obvious that performing watchdog duties over the facts in the discussion of Black Confederates is necessary these days.

(I’ve put your initials after the comments I’m responding to in order to make it easier for readers to follow.)

You’re welcome. Yes, you could certainly define nationalism more broadly, but I was using that narrow definition to try to explain the Southern slaves’ “patriotism.” Perhaps I should have just left it at this: Many of the slaves loved their “country”, i.e. the land, the people. They did not love the government (US before secession, CS after.) They were patriotic in that sense.

A modern analogy would be Americans who love their country—our founding principles, the land, its people, etc., but aren’t real enamored with the current administration(s). Present day neo-cons (as well as many liberals) would be a good example of nationalists, IMHO, who do love their government.

“I assume you mean because the government specifically cited the preservation of slavery in its constitution.” – KM

Possibly, but I doubt many slaves read the CSA constitution, but, generally, the slaves perceived the Union’s “cause” was to “set them free” and the CSA (government) opposed the Union (government).

“Is country to be understood as bigger than nationalism/government or even more local where communities differed in terms of the way slaves and whites interacted with one another?” – KM

Yes. Bigger in the sense that it’s more important on a personal level. “Government”—especially national government—is a huge, faceless, impersonal, cold, and often cruel entity. That, of course, still holds true today, which is why the Jeffersonian wing of the founders wanted to keep it small and “controllable.”

Perhaps growing up in the South and in what was/is still agrarian and more “community oriented” in many pockets, makes this distinction easier for me & harder for those from different parts of the country to fully understand. (No disrespect meant.)

“I agree that his bravery, etc. should not be diminished because he was a slave.” KM

Exactly. Using another less than perfect analogy, we do not distinguish between Vietnam war vet’s bravery who were drafted and those who volunteered. Many of those soldiers (draftees) were against the war in a political sense, but also would have—and did—die fighting for and with their commanding officers who may have had opposite views regarding the political aspects of the conflict. They were brave and they were heroes, despite the fact they may have been against the political reasons for the war and may even have “hated” their government, but not their “country.”

Again, though not a perfect analogy, I think similar principles and feelings applied to some of the black Confederates, as well as the Confederate slaves. Thus, they too deserve honor and recognition for their deeds and their service.

“In fact, you acknowledge that only after the war was their participation acknowledged and honored. It suggests to me that their status as slaves, along with their racial assumptions about blacks, prevented them from doing so.” KM

Not exactly. Let me clarify. This is where the country vs. government, and whole patriotic theme comes back into play. Ervin Jordan notes that only in the soldier’s diaries, journals, letters, etc. did these black Confederates get any “appreciation.” These common soldiers were in the best position to note that service—they were their “countrymen” in that narrow sense—“community” despite the racial divide and their prejudices. The official or “government” reports failed to duly mention (though I do believe there are a few exceptions to that as well) the service and sacrifice of these men. Of course, this attitude began to change near the end of the war, partly out of desperation, but also perhaps due to a growing recognition that these men could and would provide valuable service to the South’s cause. But, yes, as I already stated most did not get the official recognition they should have until after the war.

“Finally, I agree that most people would want to see acts of bravery honored, but I do have a problem when it is done by the SCV.” KM

Why? I think we are in agreement that is what should have been done in the first place. The descendants are simply correcting the neglect of their ancestors. If these men served in the Confederate Army, the SCV is the only officially (501c3) recognized organization set up to honor those who served in the Confederate military.

“I understand the function of the SCV as an organization whose expressed purpose is to honor the service and memory of their Confederate ancestors.” KM

The SCV mission is broader than that.

“These are the same ancestors who, regardless of whether they owned slaves or not, or even approved or disapproved of the institution, fought for a government whose expressed purpose was the preservation of slavery.” and “It would be one thing if we could demonstrate that the individual in question volunteered without any coercion. . .” KM

Go back to my Vietnam analogy. Being drafted is certainly coercion. Admittedly Kevin, it is a complicated relationship and the issue is probably one in which we will simply have to agree to disagree. I think your problem is that you and others perceive the SCV as “using” these men in a political sense. I am a realist and, doubtless, some of that goes on. But that goes back to making assumptions. It goes on with today’s soldiers as well. Some of that is unavoidable. But for many others (I honestly believe most), it is truly a sincere expression of doing what is the right thing to do. And that is my position.

“However, given that you have already admitted that the majority of cases involve Confederate slaves, [does that surprise you?] I would like to see their bravery and heroism acknowledged as that of a slave. In short, I want their identity as a slave emphasized because that renders their actions that much more remarkable from my perspective.” KM

I have no problem acknowledging that a black Confederate was a slave. But depending on what you mean by “emphasizing”—that could also be used to exploit these men politically. This delicate balance goes back to what Pete mentioned in the last paragraph of his original post. Would you not agree?

As I stated before, I also think that makes their bravery (especially for those who fought or performed an act like Neptune) all the more exceptional as well as intriguing. Irony is always an important and integral part of an interesting story. Which is one of the reasons we love history, right?

Marc

On the basis of what besides speculation do you arrive at this conclusion? You claim to have found the record of one slave who enlisted, but my understanding is that no individuals recognized as “colored” could legally enlist, and furthermore on what basis could a slave, someone only recognized as property and with no agency of his own, enlist? Considering everything else we know, whatever this discovery of yours represents, and we can’t really be sure, the best we can say it seems to me is that this is some kind of anomaly/curiosity that we don’t know enough about the particular circumstances to explain. As for the number of slaves in the ranks of the Confederate army, I return us to the question of why no one seems to have known they were there, including General Cleburne, General Lee, or Jefferson Davis? Why did the question have to be so hotly debated? Why, in all the records, speeches, and letters of the time did no one point out that slaves had already enlisted and were serving honorably in the ranks? As Kevin pointed out, we know that a few free “blacks,” invariably “mulattoes,” did enlist, but we also know that they almost certainly did so by “passing” for white. Generally when discovered, they were discharged. This, in my opinion, does not provide evidence of blacks serving, but that anyone of mixed racial ancestry was considered black, and so this is better seen as evidence of the social and racial reality that one was better off identifying oneself as white. In other words, it was an opportunity for racial assimilation. Finally, I just think it does violence to the historical realities to talk about slaves “serving” in the army.

Actually, I would think that the number of slaves exceeded the number of free blacks in the ranks of the Confederate army. Granted, I’ve only found one black from Page County in the Confederate army, but he was a slave. In my experience, free blacks. for the most, appeared to threaten the social structure, while slaves were more effectively “managed” by being under the system of slavery. Just the other day, I posted about a free black in Page County who was forced into the service of the Confederacy (as a laborer), but the point is that he was “forced.” He was no volunteer for the service of the Confederacy.

While the effort to find Black Confederates continues, I think you are absolutely correct about blacks “voting with their feet.” Clearly, the number in the U.S.C.T., the Navy, and in other capacities, not to mention those that just went North, outweighs any number that can be presented as soldiers in the Confederate army. Then too, what they encountered in any of those roles was not necessarily an “oasis.”

On another note, I want to clarify that the Act of 1924 (Virginia) was not limited to pensions for body servants. It also included other categories of workers and thereby was not limited to being of service to blacks, free or slave, at the time of the war. The work has yet to be done, but I think that those who benefited from this pension will prove dominantly white.