Black Confederates in Newspapers split from Searching for Black Confederates by Kevin Levin

[Andersonh1]

It depends on when you set the start date for the debate. There were certainly those who claimed armed black men already in the Confederate army, even though they were not enlisted or legally classified as soldiers. Allowing these men to legally enlist and classifying them as soldiers was just formalizing an already existing situation.

In truth there are a considerable number of negroes bearing arms in the rebel army now. They are not so employed by any order of the War Department, nor are they generally formed in companies by themselves, but when they fight they fight side by side with the white soldier. These negroes for the most part belong to the officers and men of the commands to which they are attached.... When an engagement is about to take place, such of these negroes as are willing to fight are equipped and go into battle with their masters. In March last I was sent as courier by the Secretary of War to Gen. J. E. B. Stuart, and was with his command, in Col Owen's (the 3d Virginia) regiment, belonging to Fitzhugh Lee's brigade, at the battle of Kelly's Ford.... At the battle referred to, these negroes fought magnificently by the side of their masters, and several of them were killed. The servant of McClellan, Adjutant of the regiment, displayed a courage and a desperation that challenged the admiration of all who saw him, and the day after the fight he received from Col. Owen the present of a handsome sword for his bravery. - report by the correspondent of the NY Tribune, published in the Chicago Daily Tribune., March 23, 1864 ​

 

[Viper21]

It depends on when you set the start date for the debate. There were certainly those who claimed armed black men already in the Confederate army, even though they were not enlisted or legally classified as soldiers. Allowing these men to legally enlist and classifying them as soldiers was just formalizing an already existing situation.

In truth there are a considerable number of negroes bearing arms in the rebel army now. They are not so employed by any order of the War Department, nor are they generally formed in companies by themselves, but when they fight they fight side by side with the white soldier. These negroes for the most part belong to the officers and men of the commands to which they are attached.... When an engagement is about to take place, such of these negroes as are willing to fight are equipped and go into battle with their masters. In March last I was sent as courier by the Secretary of War to Gen. J. E. B. Stuart, and was with his command, in Col Owen's (the 3d Virginia) regiment, belonging to Fitzhugh Lee's brigade, at the battle of Kelly's Ford.... At the battle referred to, these negroes fought magnificently by the side of their masters, and several of them were killed. The servant of McClellan, Adjutant of the regiment, displayed a courage and a desperation that challenged the admiration of all who saw him, and the day after the fight he received from Col. Owen the present of a handsome sword for his bravery. - report by the correspondent of the NY Tribune, published in the Chicago Daily Tribune., March 23, 1864 ​

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84031490/1864-03-23/ed-1/seq-3/

 

[jgoodguy]

Please find newspapers with the term 'Black Confederates' and that said BCs are part of the CSA military. "They are not so employed by any order of the War Department, nor are they generally formed in companies by themselves" = not soldiers. They are not part of the CSA military, do not wear uniforms with distictive insignia and are not part of any official record.

You are welcome to post anything from the newspapers in this thread you wish.

 

[Tom]

In March last I was sent as courier by the Secretary of War to Gen. J. E. B. Stuart, and was with his command, in Col Owen's (the 3d Virginia) regiment, belonging to Fitzhugh Lee's brigade, at the battle of Kelly's Ford.... At the battle referred to, these negroes fought magnificently by the side of their masters, and several of them were killed. The servant of McClellan, Adjutant of the regiment, displayed a courage and a desperation that challenged the admiration of all who saw him, and the day after the fight he received from Col. Owen the present of a handsome sword for his bravery. - report by the correspondent of the NY Tribune, published in the Chicago Daily Tribune., March 23, 1864 ​

Col. Thomas H. Owen



Adjutant H.B. McClellan

 

[Viper21]

It depends on when you set the start date for the debate. There were certainly those who claimed armed black men already in the Confederate army, even though they were not enlisted or legally classified as soldiers. Allowing these men to legally enlist and classifying them as soldiers was just formalizing an already existing situation.

In truth there are a considerable number of negroes bearing arms in the rebel army now. They are not so employed by any order of the War Department, nor are they generally formed in companies by themselves, but when they fight they fight side by side with the white soldier. These negroes for the most part belong to the officers and men of the commands to which they are attached.... When an engagement is about to take place, such of these negroes as are willing to fight are equipped and go into battle with their masters. In March last I was sent as courier by the Secretary of War to Gen. J. E. B. Stuart, and was with his command, in Col Owen's (the 3d Virginia) regiment, belonging to Fitzhugh Lee's brigade, at the battle of Kelly's Ford.... At the battle referred to, these negroes fought magnificently by the side of their masters, and several of them were killed. The servant of McClellan, Adjutant of the regiment, displayed a courage and a desperation that challenged the admiration of all who saw him, and the day after the fight he received from Col. Owen the present of a handsome sword for his bravery. - report by the correspondent of the NY Tribune, published in the Chicago Daily Tribune., March 23, 1864 ​

It's interesting to me that, so many discount this story (& others like it). If you read the entire article (I provided a link to the paper), some of it, is a first hand eyewitness account.

 

[Andersonh1]

It's interesting to me that, so many discount this story (& others like it). If you read the entire article (I provided a link to the paper), some of it, is a first hand eyewitness account.

It's a credible eyewitness account with specific names and units mentioned which can be verified, as Tom has so helpfully given examples of.

 

[Viper21]

Lots of specific names and units mentioned which can be verified, as Tom has so helpfully given examples of.

Nope. It's all a myth, propagated by the SCV.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...!

 

[Joshism]

When an engagement is about to take place, such of these negroes as are willing to fight are equipped and go into battle with their masters. In March last I was sent as courier by the Secretary of War to Gen. J. E. B. Stuart, and was with his command, in Col Owen's (the 3d Virginia) regiment, belonging to Fitzhugh Lee's brigade, at the battle of Kelly's Ford.... At the battle referred to, these negroes fought magnificently by the side of their masters, and several of them were killed.

Do we have any diaries or other relevant first-hand accounts from Owens or members of his regiment that could shed further light on the event described?

It should be noted though the article explicitly describes the men as enslaved and not enlisted, and doesn't give any indication of how actually many fought. That a few slaves, thought especially trustworthy and reliable, might be willing to fight for (and under the direct supervision of) their masters is interesting. It also remains an outlier situation.

 

[Viper21]

That a few slaves, thought especially trustworthy and reliable, might be willing to fight for (and under the direct supervision of) their masters is interesting. It also remains an outlier situation.

A few....??? The article (first hand account) claims a 1 to 4 ratio. He also claims they, "fought magnificently".

 

[Canteen]

Is the Confederate Government overruled by newspaper articles on the subject of so-called "black confederates", or blacks/slaves being soldiers?

Kevin Dally

 

[Andersonh1]

Is the Confederate Government overruled by newspaper articles on the subject of so-called "black confederates", or blacks/slaves being soldiers?

Kevin Dally

Read the article, and your question will be answered. Although I would add this: not everyone followed the rules. I know it's shocking that rebels would rebel, but it did happen.

 

[Viper21]

Read the article, and your question will be answered. Although I would add this: not everyone followed the rules. I know it's shocking that rebels would rebel, but it did happen.

First hand accounts don't matter. Especially if they are recorded in a newspaper. We all know what the Official policy of the CSA government was. Just like we all know what the Official policy of the US government is today on say, immigration. Yet, how many state governments intentionally don't comply, or assist with enforcement of Federal law..? How about cities...? My point isn't to break into that topic, my point is, regardless of Federal law, states & others have been disregarding Federal law for a long time.

Yet, were supposed to believe that all states, municipalities, & military leaders strictly followed CSA official policy during a war, where their homes were being ravaged, & man power was needed. Hmmm.... you'd have to have your head in the sand to believe in the myth that, BC's are a myth.

 

[Joshism]

A few....??? The article (first hand account) claims a 1 to 4 ratio. He also claims they, "fought magnificently".

I assume the 1:4 black:white ratio is in the full article since it's not in the part quoted. Regardless, that ratio seems hard to believe.

I asked for first-hand accounts from the regiment because this is a Northern newspaper reprinting another Northern newspaper printing what their correspondent said - a correspondent who is himself a Confederate apparently since he speaks of serving as a courier between the SecWar and Stuart. There's a chain of information that seems a bit suspect.

Furthermore, this is an unusual arrangement, and someone actually part of the regiment might not only verify it and provide more details but also explain how and why it came about.

What does the claim they "fought magnificently" have to do with how many there are?

 

[Viper21]

I assume the 1:4 black:white ratio is in the full article since it's not in the part quoted. Regardless, that ratio seems hard to believe.

I asked for first-hand accounts from the regiment because this is a Northern newspaper reprinting another Northern newspaper printing what their correspondent said - a correspondent who is himself a Confederate apparently since he speaks of serving as a courier between the SecWar and Stuart. There's a chain of information that seems a bit suspect.

Furthermore, this is an unusual arrangement, and someone actually part of the regiment might not only verify it and provide more details but also explain how and why it came about.

What does the claim they "fought magnificently" have to do with how many there are?

It's in the photo of the actual article that I posted above.

 

[jgoodguy]

I assume the 1:4 black:white ratio is in the full article since it's not in the part quoted. Regardless, that ratio seems hard to believe.

I asked for first-hand accounts from the regiment because this is a Northern newspaper reprinting another Northern newspaper printing what their correspondent said - a correspondent who is himself a Confederate apparently since he speaks of serving as a courier between the SecWar and Stuart. There's a chain of information that seems a bit suspect.

Furthermore, this is an unusual arrangement, and someone actually part of the regiment might not only verify it and provide more details but also explain how and why it came about.

What does the claim they "fought magnificently" have to do with how many there are?

Accounts of 'Black Confederates' in official records and CSRs are minimal.

 

[Viper21]

Accounts of 'Black Confederates' in official records and CSRs are minimal.

Kind of makes sense doesn't it..? If it's against official policy, why would commanders put it in official records..?

I know when I was in the military, I can't think of much that was against official policy yet, made it into the reports or records. Although, I can think of lots of stuff against official policy that happened on a routine basis.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Kind of makes sense doesn't it..? If it's against official policy, why would commanders put it in official records..?

Would that be Snafu or Fubar that was left out?

 

[Canteen]

Read the article, and your question will be answered. Although I would add this: not everyone followed the rules. I know it's shocking that rebels would rebel, but it did happen.

Still, does it override the CS Government's stand on blacks/slaves/negroes being soldiers?

Kevin Dally

 

[Andersonh1]

Still, does it override the CS Government's stand on blacks/slaves/negroes being soldiers?

Kevin Dally

I thought the article was quite clear: slaves in that unit who wanted to fight were allowed to. Were they enlisted soldiers? No. Did they act as if they were. Yes. Who allowed it? The unit commanders would seem the only answer to that, and either they did not care that they violated CS army regulations, or they did not feel that allowing their servants to fight actually violated any rules.

The answer to your question is "no", and the article itself also answers the question.

In truth there are a considerable number of negroes bearing arms in the rebel army now. They are not so employed by any order of the War Department, nor are they generally formed in companies by themselves, but when they fight they fight side by side with the white soldier.
​

So the question is, how often did this happen? Is there any way to document the existence and actions of "slave combatants" apart from personal accounts? They would not appear on any muster rolls as enlisted, because they weren't. They're not likely to be included in any battle reports if their presence is not sanctioned by the war department. How much of this went on?

 

[Canteen]

I thought the article was quite clear: slaves in that unit who wanted to fight were allowed to. Were they enlisted soldiers? No. Did they act as if they were. Yes. Who allowed it? The unit commanders would seem the only answer to that, and either they did not care that they violated CS army regulations, or they did not feel that allowing their servants to fight actually violated any rules.

I wonder if laws concerning arming slaves, changed in some way?
No they were not soldiers, so why work so hard to make them as such, or try to get folk to BELIEVE they were?

Kevin Dally