I have had a question concerning the use of black troops in the Civil War for quite some time. I am not certain that you can answer the question, but I would like to pose it, if I may.

Knowing (I assume) the hatred and fear that white southerners felt for black men and women, particularly for black men bearing arms, why did the Union employ black soldiers and put them in such danger? Are there comparison studies to other wars that can be done? For example, were Jewish soldiers put in the front lines to fight the Nazis? Why were black soldiers put in such terrible danger is my question. Also, was the Union high command aware of the unique dangers African American troops faced in the Civil War? What was the official policy? Thanks, Kevin. Sherree

The evidence is pretty clear that Confederates in the ranks believed that black soldiers constituted a threat to their “way of life” and they also worried about retribution. Again, I think we need to connect these men to the antebellum culture of a slaveowning society. All too often we interpret Civil War soldiers in a vacuum as if they simply fell out of the sky in 1861. As I’ve said before I think the post-emancipation period (1863-65) helped to clarify for white Southerners just what was at stake in the war and may help to explain why they persisted for so long even after the point where, from our perspective, things looked bleak. In this context, I am thinking of Jason Phillips’s recent book _Diehard Confederates_, Chandra Manning’s _What This Cruel War Was Over_ and especially, Joe Glatthaar’s _General Lee’s Army_ who offers a convincing analysis that should help us think of the threat and defense of slavery as extending beyond a narrowly-defined slaveholding class.

As to your second point, what strikes me is the convergence that I am finding in the accounts of Confederates following the Crater on the perceived threat represented by black soldiers. The paternalism that Genovese analyzes comes through loud and clear in their insistence that slaves would never fight against their masters unless they were duped into doing so. Many accounts suggest that they were drunk or forced to fight. Your point about the interaction between the planter class and poor whites does come out in plenty of other areas, including questions of leadership and discipline in the ranks.

Again, not to keep picking on a theme, but it seems to me there’s got to be more than a standard view point expressed by Southerners in their writings. Rather some range of sentiments on the issue. Particularly if you follow Genovese logic as to the interaction between the planter class and poor whites.

Craig.

Just to muddle things up some…Southhampton County also produced another famous son; Union General George H. Thomas. Thomas of course employed a number of USCT regiments at the Battle of Nashville in December 1864 that basically put an end to the Confederate Army of Tennessee.

Sorry to be so critical; it’s the end of the week, I guess I’m just in a bad mood

I don’t see why they would have to reference Turner specifically to make the broader point that their words and actions mirror those exhibited when black slaves proved to be a threat during the antebellum period. It would have been understood. Let me be clear that I believe white Southerners generally would have viewed what happened at the Crater and elsewhere as something that reminded them of the dangers of emancipation, race war, miscegenation, etc.

While it may be “obvious” to understand the presence of black soldiers as a threat that doesn’t help us to understand that threat. I want to better understand why it was a threat. Why, for instance, was it necessary to mix the black and white Union prisoners and march (and countermarch) them through the streets of Petersburg? Why were large numbers of blacks executed after the battle. You can’t simply say that they were a threat since threats can be dealt with in any number of ways.

Thanks again for your comments on this.

I wish you luck, in all seriousness.