A Black Confederate Soldier Who Served Two Masters

Update: No surprise that this story was picked up by a local news station. This is a wonderful example of why this myth will not die.

searcyThe vast majority of people who come into contact with the Myth of the Black Confederate Soldier so do through stories such as this one out of Chattanooga, Tennessee. This one is particularly useful. It’s brief and any discerning reader can easily pick out the contradictions.

Let’s start at the beginning:

Shaderick Searcy was a black Confederate soldier. He was a bonded servant of Dr. John Searcy of Talbotton, Ga. When the Civil War began, Dr. Searcy, knowing that both his sons James and Kitchen would become pawns in this great struggle for states rights, dedicated Shaderick to become body servant to his two boys.

In the first two sentences we learn that Searcy was both a soldier and a servant (slave) to two Confederate soldiers. No reporter is listed, but whoever is responsible for this piece clearly does not understand the difference between the two or how Confederates at the time understood the difference.

He received a pension for his Confederate service and died at the age of 91 in Chattanooga.

Searcy likely received a pension for his time in the army as a slave and not as a solider. The state legislature, like many other former Confederate states, awarded former slaves pensions, who could demonstrate fidelity to their masters.

Finally, there is the headstone itself, which clearly indicates that Searcy “served under masters J.D. and W.K. Searcy.” How much clearer does it have to be that Searcy was not a soldier? I would love to know what year the marker was placed. While the Confederate battle flag etched on the marker might be confusing, the legal status of this individual and his role in the war is crystal clear.

Civil War Memory has moved to Substack! Don’t miss a single post. Subscribe below.

36 comments… add one
  • Forester Mar 30, 2016 @ 18:14

    Yep. It’s just like my great-great-grandfather’s slave who got a pension. I’ve told that story already, so I won’t repeat it again. Suffice to say that the 55th NC records clearly state that he “served his Master” not “joined the Confederate Army as a soldier.”

    It takes a special kind of stupid to misread such clear language.

  • Rob Baker Mar 26, 2016 @ 6:47

    I was just about to comment that a local news station picked up the story. You are ahead of me.

  • Scott Ledridge Mar 25, 2016 @ 21:42

    As a native Chattanoogan, and a former employee of the Chattanooga Regional History Museum, I have to admit this is pretty depressing. But, perusing the Channel 9 FB page, there seems to be a surprising push against the use of the term “soldier”.

    • Kevin Levin Mar 26, 2016 @ 1:44

      But, perusing the Channel 9 FB page, there seems to be a surprising push against the use of the term “soldier”.

      As it should be given the fact that he was not a soldier.

      • Scott Ledridge Mar 26, 2016 @ 7:19

        I just meant it was surprising to me there wasn’t a much stronger defense of the term. But, thankfully, there were so many that wanted to see this man portrayed correctly so as not to give credence to the “black confederate” myth.

        Mr. Levin, in your experience, have you come across well-intentioned people that are ignorant of the larger issue of “black confederates”, but in an effort to see right done by those African Americans, were supportive of the term?

        (I hope that makes the same sense it does in my head.)

        • Kevin Levin Mar 26, 2016 @ 7:51

          Hi Scott,

          Thanks for clarifying.

          Yes, in fact, I think the largest group of people who believe this nonsense do so because they do no fully understand the relevant history.

  • Andy Hall Mar 25, 2016 @ 18:38

    Searcy’s Tennessee pension file (17MB PDF) can be downloaded here:


    As usual there is no ambiguity in the pension file about Searcy’s status during the war. One thing interesting to note, though, is that after his death the adjutant of the local UCV camp in Chattanooga sought to have a standard Confederate marker for Searcy’s grave site, writing, “out last Confederate Negro Servant Pensioner is being buried today, Shadrick Searcy.” The pension board examiner turned him down, replying, “just Confederate soldiers (White) are permitted to have these.” That probably explains that unusual headstone recently found.

    • Kevin Levin Mar 26, 2016 @ 1:47

      Thanks, Andy. It’s always amazing to me what just a few seconds of research can yield.

    • Rblee22468 Mar 26, 2016 @ 11:27

      This news report says that the marker (not the one that was buried) was placed in 1999.

      • Andy Hall Mar 26, 2016 @ 14:22

        That sounds about right. The heritage folks have been working for years to put up VA-supplied markers for “black Confederates,” often (as in this case) inscribed with a military rank that the man never actually held. Then they point to the market they put up as evidence that the man was, in fact, an enlisted soldier.

        In Searcy’s case, the members of the local UCV camp who actually knew him and sought a headstone for him made no pretensions about his wartime status. It’s their descendants today who play make-believe.

    • Rob Baker Mar 27, 2016 @ 4:54

      Great find Andy. If you don’t mind me asking, where did you come across the documents?

      • Andy Hall Mar 27, 2016 @ 5:56

        Hey, Rob.

        As you probably know, Confederate pensions were handled by individuals states, not the federal government, so the records are in a variety of places. Not all states have their files online.

        In this case, Tennessee’s Confederate pension files are digitized and online at FamilySearch.org, which requires a free registration. Start by going to the Tennessee Secretary of State website and using the name index to find the file number (separate index for servants’ pensions), and then over to FamilySearch to look up the actual file. It’s cumbersome, but it works well enough.

        Some other states, like Texas and Virginia, are available through a commercial site, Ancestry.

        • Rob Baker Mar 27, 2016 @ 8:39

          Gracias. I found the file number earlier yesterday but never came across the actual documents. Good ol’ FamilySearch.

  • Rblee22468 Mar 25, 2016 @ 11:21

    Donnie Ashley went mute after my first reply…

  • Rob Baker Mar 25, 2016 @ 7:20

    “The Chattanoogan” seems to be an online news source. The local paper in Chattanooga is the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

    Here is a story from a couple of years ago about the cemetery. Searcy’s legacy remains muddled. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2014/apr/20/confederate-cemetery-relies-on-philanthropy/137783/

  • Joshism Mar 24, 2016 @ 18:00

    What was the mindset of those responsible for Southern states giving pensions to former slaves who served the CSA army? It is a time period when the South rarely gave blacks anything better than a hard time.

    • woodrowfan Mar 25, 2016 @ 3:52

      It helps strengthen their belief in the “loyal slave” narrative. One of my Tennessee ancestors bitched and moaned in his memoirs about the Yankees “stealing” all of his slaves but two. Hell, in reality they probably took off as soon as the Union Army came within view. But to admit that would be to admit to himself that he held people against their will. But if they were “stolen” then he could keep insisting slavery was a good thing, ruined by ignorant northern interlopers. Same with the grave. “See, they were happy and loyal in slavery!”

    • Rblee22468 Mar 25, 2016 @ 11:23

      An interesting question.

  • H.S. Anderson Mar 24, 2016 @ 10:00

    I wonder why Mr. Searcy chose to be buried in the Confederate cemetery, or indeed whether it was his choice at all, or if someone else made that decision after his death? I’d like to know more about the man’s life, and if during the war he freely chose to remain with the 46th after both brothers died rather than return to the father, or if he was given no choice in the matter. There’s a lot we just don’t know.

    • Rblee22468 Mar 24, 2016 @ 10:11

      I wonder if he took the surname Searcy by choice?

      • Andy Hall Mar 24, 2016 @ 11:01

        “I wonder if he took the surname Searcy by choice?”

        Probably impossible to say. If he stayed in the same area postwar, adopting his former owners’ surname might have been a practical consideration. But I’ve also profiled two men, Crockett Davis and Steve Perry, who used their former owners’ surnames when involved with veterans’ groups and events, and a completely different name for more official purposes (e.g., the census).

    • Kevin Levin Mar 24, 2016 @ 10:21

      He may have been involved in veterans activities after the war. That would have been sufficient for inclusion in the cemetery, but keep in mind that they did not describe him as a soldier.

      • andersonh1 Mar 24, 2016 @ 17:02

        Agreed, all the evidence indicates that he was a slave during the war.

      • RUDOLPH YOUNG Mar 24, 2016 @ 17:19

        Someone ignored the Meritorious Manumission act of 1712 50 years after a war . It became the reason for selective Reparations under the modification of the Tenn. pension laws around 1920.

    • Anthony Ford Nov 27, 2021 @ 21:17

      I am a Family Researcher/Genealogist. This is some astonishing and remarkable information. Yes many many individuals today are miss applying the word “SERVANT.” Yes during Slavery in the United States of America. In 1619 in Hampton Virginia at Fort Monroe/Comfort. 20-30 Angolan West African Slaves were brought into the Virginia Colonist.

      These African Slaves were used as “INDENTURED SERVANTS.” They weren’t concerned “A SLAVE.” In 1640 (in Virginia) the first black Male would become the first to sentenced by the Virginia Court to serve his Owner (not Slave Master/Owner) for life. This black Man was an Indentured Servant to this Owner.
      The Indentured Servant had Breached his Servitude obligations. Thereby his Owner took him to Court. Around the late 1680’s Virginia would change all of it’s black Indentured Servant to that of a “SLAVE. ” This then brings me to this information. Shadrick was under his “SLAVE MASTERS/OWNER as a “SLAVE.”

      It’s true that there were many Southern black Slaves who in 1863 except their Freedom as a direct result of President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Someone has correctly said that many black Slaves were “FAITHFUL” Slaves. Shadrich was so faithful that he would move to Chattanooga, Tennessee to be close to his Master’s sons.

      Yes it does seems odd that his marker looks fairly new, because it was placed their in 1999. Yes as far a his pension. It wasn’t a pension. It a separate funds for those faithful black Slaves who stayed with the Confederate Army as a “SERVANT/SLAVE. ”

      As I had mentioned that I am a Family Researcher/Genealogist. I also have come across many black Confederate Soldier’s gravesites. As well as seeing photos of them posing with the White Confederate Soldiers.
      I come to believe that there are individuals who are trying to convince us the black Slaves were actually Confederate Soldiers.

      Remember that I President Lincoln signed the Emaciapation Proclamation to take effect on January 1, 1863. Shadrick live in a Rebellious State. The Civil War started in 1861 in South Carolina. Shadrich was born in Georgia. It seems that these individuals are saying that their Confederate Statues shouldn’t have been removed.

      Because of the black Slaves participation in the Civil War as “SERVANTS.” Again I am grateful to have come across this information. The news report had me for a minute. Nevertheless though, your insight has really helped me in this area.

  • Mark Snell Mar 24, 2016 @ 4:44

    You left out the best part, Kevin: “‘Now as Sons of Confederate Veterans we too can honor the memory and the service of this Confederate soldier,’ said John A. Campbell, N.B. Forrest Camp 3, Sons of Confederate Veterans.” These guys just won’t give up. The sad thing is that the writer of this post relayed the story to his readers like it was the gospel truth, rather than analyze its historical accuracy. I guess that is asking too much for an online “news” source. Or, perhaps, there is an agenda lurking in the background?

    • Kevin Levin Mar 24, 2016 @ 4:51

      Unfortunately, this is how most of these stories are reported in local newspapers. Reporters typically pass on verbatim what they are told or get seduced by sharing with their readers a story that has a certain shock value attached to it.

    • Rblee22468 Mar 24, 2016 @ 6:50

      I have written an email to the Chattanooogan to see if they will reveal the name of the author.

      We don’t even know if this was written by a staff member, do we? Is this a reader submission I wonder?

      • Andy Hall Mar 24, 2016 @ 7:09

        The lack of a byline indicates this is a story provided to the paper, rather than one actively reported by them. It’s a very widespread practice in this day when print media is struggling to pay the bills, and simply doesn’t have the personnel (either staff or stringers) to go around. Providing usable news copy to the local paper is one of the most effective ways to get information out to a wider audience with minimal (or no) editing.

        • Kevin Levin Mar 24, 2016 @ 8:03

          I agree.

          • Rblee22468 Mar 24, 2016 @ 8:57

            John Wilson at The Chattanoogan wrote me back. He says the author is one John Campbell.

            • Andy Hall Mar 24, 2016 @ 10:01

              Campbell is identified in the article as being with the local SCV. It’s not a reported story; it’s a press release. Newspapers do this all the time. For them, items like this help fill column inches.

            • Rblee22468 Mar 24, 2016 @ 10:08

              I’m having an email exchange with Donnie Ashley at the SCV camp about this now.

      • Kristoffer Mar 24, 2016 @ 8:37

        The article is listed as being written by “John A. Campbell,” who does not show up in the list of members: http://chattanoogan.com/About-the-Chattanoogan.aspx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *