Blacks and Women
Art Bergeron
worms," I post the following. In a published interview with DeAnne
Blanton and Lauren Cook Burgess, these authors of a forthcoming book on
women soldiers responded to the question "Generally speaking, women
soldiers did not affect the outcome of the War. So why is it important for
us to acknowledge their role?" Their answer: "Because they were there.
We believe that the women veterans of the Civil War deserve the same honor
accorded to their male comrades. Women soldiers faced not only the guns
of the adversary, but also the prejudices of their society. Their country
did not expect thR„ƒ)PSÝ they did itPpway. Every single woman soldier was
a willing volunteer, who went to extraordinary measures to enlist and stay
in the army. We feel that such devotion to cause and country is a
worthwhile story in itself." (_Civil War Book Review_, Vol. 1, No. 2).
Blanton, Burgess, Elizabeth Leonard, and a few others have made the claim
that anywhere from 200 to 1,000 women successfully disguised themselves as
men and served in the Union and Confederate armies. From what I have seen
in print so far, only three cases of women soldiers have been documented
completely. All of the others instances are based upon fragmentary
evidence and questionable contemporary accounts (such as newspaper reports
of an unidentified woman having been found in uniform).
Let's change slightly Blanton's and Burgess' statement above and apply it
to black Confederates: "Because they were there. We believe that the
black Confederate veterans of the Civil War deserve the same honor
accorded to their white male comrades. Black Confederate soldiers faced
not only the guns of the adversary, but also the prejudices of their
society. Their country did not expect and tried to prevent them from
fighting, yet they did it anyway. The great majority of black Confederate
soldiers were willing volunteers, who went to extraordinary measures to
enlist and stay in the army. We feel that such devotion to cause and
country is a worthwhile story in itself." There are far many more
completely documented cases of black Confederate soldiers and probably
more cases based upon fragmentary evidence than is the case with women
soldiers.
To date, no one seems to have challenged the claims of the numbers of
women soldiers. Yet efforts to publicize the fact that both free blacks
and slaves willingly fought for the Confederacy are attacked by the same
folks who don't seem to have a problem with the exaggerated claims about
women soldiers. Why is there such a double standard? Why can't we accept
that the service of both black Southerners and women deserve recognition?
Art Bergeron
--
The South is a place. East, west, and north are nothing but directions.
Peter Schwartz
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
> In an effort to keep open this incredibly divisive and acrimonious "can of
> worms," I post the following. In a published interview with DeAnne
Art wrote:
>Why is there such a double standard? Why can't we accept
> that the service of both black Southerners and women deserve recognition?
Ture enough that they deserve recognition, but, IMHO, they were such a
minority (no pun intended) as to be relegated to a footnote. I've read a
number of books that mention both points--women & Southern blacks in
military service--but they do not make a big deal of it, and that's
because it wasn't. Another forgotten, but larger group are the native
Americans, many of whom fought for the South.
Peter
--
Peter Schwartz |"Oh, no. Mix them up. I'm tired of states' rights."
ps...@cornell.edu | --Maj. Gen. George Thomas
Ostrich!
(paraphrased) [ why are women soldiers more deserving of
recognition than black confederates?]
I'd challenge the idea that either group is deserving of widespread
recognition. Women soldiers on either side and black confederates
are both extremely nonrepresentative examples of Civil War soldiers.
As individual soldiers, they're as deserving of recognition and honour
as anyone, and perhaps more than most, given the circumstances of
their service. Considered as a group, however, they're simply footnotes
to history. There just weren't enough of either to make any difference.
It's a weakness of every generation to see the past through a glass
coloured by current prejudices. In our own time, this manifests as
the practice (conscious or otherwise) of interpreting history in terms
of race and gender issues. To those who view history in this fashion,
then the service of even a single female soldier in the war has a
significance that outweighs armies of men. She's a harbinger of change,
the first green leaf signaling the inevitable coming of our current
springtime of social enlightenment. Her rarity makes her more, rather
than less worthy of recognition to those who hold this view of history.
WRT the issue of black confederates being swept under the carpet,
I suspect that it's a related issue. In this case, the existance of blacks
loyal to the south simply can't be made to fit into a vision of history
driven by race and gender conflicts. They're best ignored.
On the whole, things like this ought to be of interest to a serious
student of the period. Items like the Requa volley guns or the
confederate double-barreled cannons are also interesting, but I can't
imagine that anyone would seriously propose that they be portrayed
to the general public as having played an important role in the conflict.
All that being said, if anyone publishes a well-researched scholarly book
on black confederate soldiers, I'll buy it :)
-Ostrich! <") http://www.furnation.com/ostrich
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>To date, no one seems to have challenged the claims of the numbers of
>women soldiers. Yet efforts to publicize the fact that both free blacks
>and slaves willingly fought for the Confederacy are attacked by the same
>folks who don't seem to have a problem with the exaggerated claims about
There has never been an advocate of "thousands of women in the CW
military" posting in this newsgroup.
I don't have the time or interest to even comment on, much less debunk
everything posted here that I find in error. Isn't it a bit unfair
that I should have to worry about any of the infinite number of other
"things that are not true" which exist but are not yet posted on this
newsgroup? <g>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"What poor, mean trash this whole business of
human virtue is! A mere matter, for the most part,
of latitude and longitude, and geographical position,
acting with natural temperament. The greater part is
nothing but an accident!" UNCLE TOM'S CABIN, Stowe
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
r-sa...@nwu.edu
(Art Bergeron) wrote:
>To date, no one seems to have challenged the claims of the numbers of
>women soldiers. Yet efforts to publicize the fact that both free blacks
>and slaves willingly fought for the Confederacy are attacked by the same
>folks who don't seem to have a problem with the exaggerated claims about
>that the service of both black Southerners and women deserve recognition?
on both sides who, took the identity of a man, and fought in the Civil War.
I do not see that same set of evidence applied to blacks fighting for the
confederacy.
In the first place, the historical record indicates that discussion of
allowing blacks to participate in the conflict was taboo until much to late.
If the record is to be trusted, then how could blacks *already* be active
participants in the conflict?
Secondly, if in fact there were blacks who disguised themselves as whites, so
they could fight, (and I am not aware of any cases) then what does that say?
Lastly, I've seen zero serious evidence to suggest that blacks were willing
fighters for the CSA. Note I would not consider a laborer, or a man servant,
who suddenly finds himself in the conflict, and takes up a weapon in self
defense to be a willing fighter. Your evidence must show they joined, of
their own free will, and actively fought, over a period of time. In other
words, exactly the evidence that supports the claims of the women.
I'd like to close by stating that I personally consider this to be just one
more attempt by the apologists of the South to prove the war wasn't about
slavery.
--
Roger A. Safian
r-sa...@nwu.edu (email) finger ro...@grumpy.nsg.nwu.edu for public key
(847) 491-4058 (voice)
(847) 467-5690 (Fax) "You're never too old to have a great childhood!"
Art Bergeron
[snipped]
> Secondly, if in fact there were blacks who disguised themselves as whites, so
> they could fight, (and I am not aware of any cases) then what does that say?
>
I don't think anyone has claimed that blacks pretended to be white when
they joined Confederate units or assisted the Confederate war effort.
> Lastly, I've seen zero serious evidence to suggest that blacks were willing
> fighters for the CSA. Note I would not consider a laborer, or a man servant,
> who suddenly finds himself in the conflict, and takes up a weapon in self
> defense to be a willing fighter. Your evidence must show they joined, of
> their own free will, and actively fought, over a period of time. In other
> words, exactly the evidence that supports the claims of the women.
>
Several years ago, I published an article that documented beyond question
that fifteen free blacks from Louisiana voluntarily and enthusiastically
enlisted as soldiers in regular Confederate units from that state.
Several of them were in a number of engagements, and at least two were
wounded. There is evidence that free blacks from other states did the
same thing. As is the case with women soldiers, the evidence for slaves
who took up weapons and fought in battle is largely anecdotal. I do not
claim that hundreds of thousands of slaves fought for the Confederacy, but
there seems strong evidence that thousands of slaves and free blacks
willingly and enthusiastically did what they could to support the
Confederate war effort.
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>Several years ago, I published an article that documented beyond question
>that fifteen free blacks from Louisiana voluntarily and enthusiastically
>enlisted as soldiers in regular Confederate units from that state.
That would be:
LOUISIANA'S FREE MEN OF COLOR IN GRAY
which was published in BLACK SOUTHERNERS IN GRAY?
Michael Furlan
any newserver that I know of.]
On 14 Dec 1999 16:07:43 -0500, in soc.history.war.us-civil-war
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>In an effort to keep open this incredibly divisive and acrimonious "can of
>worms,"
I don't think it' "incredibly divisive and acrimonious." On the topic
of "Black Confederates" very little has come to light in over 60
years. Here is Bell Wiley in his book "Southern Negroes" published in
1938:
"There seems to be no evidence that the Negro soldiers authorized by
the Confederate Government [March 1865] ever went into battle. This
gives rise to the question as to whether or not any Negroes ever
fought in the Confederate ranks. It is possible that some of the free
Negro companies organized in Louisiana and Tennessee in the early part
of the war took part in local engagements; but evidence seems to the
contrary. A company of "Creoles," some of whom had Negro blood, may
have been accepted in the Confederate service at Mobile. Secretary
Seddon conditioned his authorization of the acceptance of the company
on the ability of these "Creoles" to be naturally and properly
distinguished from Negroes. If persons with Negro blood served in
Confederate ranks as full-fledged soldiers, the percent of Negro blood
was sufficiently low for them to pass as whites."
pp 160-1
That matches the evidence presented here earlier. Cases of body
servants, teamsters and cooks, and one "black" soldier who later shows
up in a census as "white."
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>Several years ago, I published an article that documented beyond question
>that fifteen free blacks from Louisiana voluntarily and enthusiastically
>enlisted as soldiers in regular Confederate units from that state.
Lutz; "probably. . .passed for white."
Jean Baptiste Pierre-Auguste: "detailed as a cook"
Lufroy Pierre-Auguste: "as 'a colored man,' Lufroy was excluded from
the provision of the draft law. He went home. . ."
Evariste Guillory, Sr and Jr.: Home Guard, ". . .they sometimes acted
as drovers gathering cattle for the army in the field."
Jacques Esclavon: "teamster and company cook"
Perot bros. and Grappe: "enrolled. . .under provisions of an order
calling for conscription as laborers of free men of color."
Jesse and William Gardner, Sylvester Perez, Ambroise Lebrun:
"If any of them remained in Captain Love's company after the
controversy of October 1864, none received a parole at the end of the
war."
As you said:
". . .until early 1865, the official policy of the Confederate
government prohibited blacks from serving as armed soldiers." A.W.
Bergeron
Gary Charbonneau
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
> To date, no one seems to have challenged the claims of the numbers of
> women soldiers. Yet efforts to publicize the fact that both free
> blacks and slaves willingly fought for the Confederacy are attacked by
> the same folks who don't seem to have a problem with the exaggerated
> claims about women soldiers. Why is there such a double standard?
> Why can't we accept that the service of both black Southerners and >
women deserve recognition?
I have no problem accepting the likelihood that some black Southerners
served willingly with, if not necessarily always literally "in", the
Confederate army. Since they did so, they certainly "fought" for the
Confederacy, some of them literally with guns in their hands. That I am
certainly willing to recognize as a fact. I'm not sure I am willing to
recognize as a fact any claim for this or that particular number of
blacks who served with the Confederate army, since that would be sheer
guesswork.
Over and above recognition of the simple fact that some blacks fought
with the Confederate army, is there any other kind of recognition you
would think these black Confederates ought to have, or some other
statements you think ought to be recognized as fact also?
Because they served willingly with the Confederate army, is there an
implication that they believed in the Confederate cause? What did they
understand the Confederate cause to be, and, if they believed in it, why
did they believe in it?
- Gary Charbonneau
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>Several years ago, I published an article that documented beyond question
>that fifteen free blacks from Louisiana voluntarily and enthusiastically
>enlisted as soldiers in regular Confederate units from that state.
As you said yourself: ". . .until early 1865, the official policy of
the Confederate government prohibited blacks from serving as armed
soldiers." You've documented fraud, not "soldiers." (Which goes for
the "women" soldiers too, btw. Except for one!)
But leave aside and consider the term "black."
Your article was entitled: LOUISIANA'S FREE MEN OF COLOR IN GRAY.
And as we agreed in an earlier exchange (Jan. 1999), Free Men of Color
_did_ _not_ consider themselves "black."
So, neither black in their own eyes, nor soldiers in the eyes of their
"country" they are not evidence of Black Confederate soldiers.
Here is some recycled material with a bit of new commentary:
On 19 Jan 1999 17:00:45 -0600, in soc.history.war.us-civil-war
pampl...@mindspring.com (Bill Lazenby) wrote:
>On 17 Jan 1999, fur...@agoron.com (Michael Furlan) wrote:
>>1. Wouldn't a FMOC have been horrified, and have considered
himself severely
>>insulted to have been referred to as "black?"
>
>Horrified is a bit too strong, but most FMOC did not refer to
themselves
>as black.
You quote a letter from a "Creole of Louisiana":
". . . they [FMOC] never associate with negroes. . ."
Nor did they even look black:
". . . the colored troops [Native Guards] -- "the darkest of whom,"
said one Union general, "will be about the complexion of the late Mr.
[Daniel] Webster"
p. 42 BEEN IN THE STORM SO LONG, Litwack
So I'd say they'd resemble the current Rep. Bob Barr.
>That is not the point. Legally they were "black." Thus, those
>who served in the army were "black" Confederates.
Which leaves the legal puzzle: According to the laws of the CSA
blacks were barred from enlisting in the army, yet these men did.
[ Current commentary: I'd say because only their close friends knew
that they were black. I've been in several situations in which casual
observers mistook a black person for white, or white person for black.
At the margins, only a blood test, or a knowledge of the persons
genealogy can determine who is what.]
I'd argue that, although according to the laws of the CSA [and United
States] that these men were black, in reality they were something
different.
They thought of themselves differently, and they were in a much
different situation as compared to the vast majority of Blacks not
only in American but also in Louisiana. And the difference in their
self image as well as their circumstances has everything to do with
how they acted during the War.
"These Negroes [from Mobile, and then I suppose all of LA] were of
French-Negro or Spanish-Negro origin, and had been guaranteed
citizenship rights in 1803 in the treaty with France by which
Louisiana was acquired."
p. 38 THE NEGRO IN THE CIVIL WAR, Quarles
[Article III of the treaty:
The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the
Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according
to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all
these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United
States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in
the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which
they profess.]
(The French Speaking, Free Men of Color retained their rights as
citizens, including that of military service according to the treaty.
The CSA clearly did not feel bound by the terms of this treaty.)
Which was the beginning point of a long process of change in the self
image and social status of the FMOC (not yet completed, as shown by
the persistence of a light skinned "Black" elite to the present day.)
"The French-Spanish, Roman Catholic heritage of Louisiana produced an
entirely different set of racial concepts from that which developed in
the predominantly Anglo-Saxon Protestant societies of the other
American colonies. Consequently, when Creole Louisiana was inducted
into the American states, the immediate result was a clash of racial
concepts and ideals. Several decades of ideological conflict
followed, but inevitably "English attitudes and institutions. . .
triumphed over Spanish-French resistance, and Anglo American ideals
and prejudices were superimposed on Latin Louisiana." Those who lost
the most in the conflict were the members of the third caste." p.
194, THE FORGOTTEN PEOPLE, Gary B. Mills
"The initial liberality of colonial Louisiana and the reluctance of
white Creoles to change their system provided the gens de couleur
libre on the Isle with privileges that their counterparts in other
states did not enjoy. The colony used these privileges, and their
accompanying quasi-citizenship, to full advantage."
p. 216, Mills
"The Civil War plummeted the people of the colony into complete
economic, social, and political ruin. The eruption of the war
undoubtedly presented their society with its greatest dilemma. A
northern victory promised the people social and political equality; it
also would eliminate their unique status and might well contribute to
their economic destruction. As a general rule, Louisiana's gens de
couleur libre had always been known for their patriotism to their
state; but this patriotism undoubtedly reflected a degree of
expediency since unpatriotic free people of color would have aroused
the ire of the whites who lived around them."
p. 230 Mills
"By volunteering for combat duty in regular Confederate service,
these men took what can be seen as the final step of their acceptance
or acculturation into the local white societies where they lived." p.
49, LOUISIANA'S FREE MEN OF COLOR, BLACK SOUTHERNERS IN GRAY
Viewed from Gary Mills' perspective these were men who had already
lost the greater degree of acceptance that they had enjoyed under
French and Spanish rule. You'd argue that things were getting
"better" under United States and then CSA rule, in reality things
were bad and getting worse.
"The actions of these free men of color in volunteering for--and of
their white comrades in accepting them into--military units should
lead us to take a closer look at race relations in Louisiana's pre-war
period." p. 50, LFMOC
Not just a closer look, but a longer look that will put the events of
1860-65 in perspective. I've already shown that blacks had been
extensively and openly used previously by the French and Spanish:
"In 1779 A French force including 600 blacks joins American troops
attempting to take Savannah from the British. The Spanish governor of
Louisiana with an army consisting of from between 10 to 50% black
troops pushed the British out of Louisiana and then took Mobile and
Pensacola. Six black officers who fought in that campaign were cited
for bravery by the king of Spain." p. 14 THE AFRICAN AMERICAN
SOLDIER, Lanning
"Cited for bravery by the king of Spain", versus "Confederate law
prohibited any blacks from serving in combat units."
What you've really succeeded in proving is that the "American Way" had
not yet done away with the older more gentile customs.
Art Bergeron
(Michael Furlan) wrote:
[snipped]
Mr. Furlan,
You seem to have made it one of your life's missions to try to slander
my research, but it won't work. Despite the way you have attempted to
twist my words and to quote them out of context, the truth of the matter
is that at least fifteen Louisiana free men of color served honorably as
Confederate soldiers. Whatever their skin tone, they were black
Confederates. There was no "fraud" involved. They were soldiers in every
sense of the word. As my research pointed out, they went into combat with
their comrades, receiving wounds and becoming prisoners of war. These men
did not pretend to be white (except for Charles Lutz, who tried to "pass"
after the war). Their comrades knew them to be FMOC and accepted them
into the ranks as such. While it might be surmised that the assignment of
some of them as cooks reflected prejudice on the part of their company and
regimental commanders, we can never know the reasons behind those
assignments. As you must know, a large number of white men also served as
cooks. These black soldiers might as easily have been discharged if there
were strong objections to having them in uniform. This happened to only
one soldier and was the result of orders issued from army headquarters,
not from the wishes of regimental or company officers.
My arguments have never been intended to deny slavery's role in the
coming of the war, as some (you?) have contended. I have readily said
again and again that there would have been no Civil War had slavery not
existed. Once the conflict was joined, however, men, regardless of color,
enlisted not to protect or abolish slavery but to preserve their views of
the nature of the Union and to protect homes and family.
It seems as if your late 1900s prejudices will not allow you to accept
the fact that blacks, both slaves and freemen, willingly and
enthusiastically supported the Confederacy despite evidence that they
did. Your views can be construed as lumping together all blacks of the
1860s and not allowing for any individuality in the same way that modern
racists lump together all blacks.
Art Bergeron
--
"You know, there is such a thing as accurate and inaccurate. Irrespective of
whatever your 'feelings' are."‹Ian Malcolm
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>Mr. Furlan,
> You seem to have made it one of your life's missions to try to slander
>my research
Not at all.
As I said a year ago when we discussed this issue I am honored when a
published author participates in this newsgroup. The time, effort and
talent that goes into getting something into print should be
recognized, and I applaud it.
Art Bergeron
<charbo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I have no problem accepting the likelihood that some black Southerners
> served willingly with, if not necessarily always literally "in", the
> Confederate army. Since they did so, they certainly "fought" for the
> Confederacy, some of them literally with guns in their hands. That I am
> certainly willing to recognize as a fact. I'm not sure I am willing to
> recognize as a fact any claim for this or that particular number of
> blacks who served with the Confederate army, since that would be sheer
> guesswork.
>
As you say, we can never know the total number of blacks who served in the
Confederate armies because of the paucity of sources. Certainly it should
be safe to say that there were far more of them than women soldiers.
> Over and above recognition of the simple fact that some blacks fought
> with the Confederate army, is there any other kind of recognition you
> would think these black Confederates ought to have, or some other
> statements you think ought to be recognized as fact also?
I think it is important for people today to recognize that the people of
the 1860s cannot be neatly fitted into preconceived categories. We can no
more group together all blacks of that time than we can modern blacks. As
uncomfortable as it makes some people feel, it is vital that the presence
of thousands of black Confederates be acknowledged. I certainly do not
advance my evidence and arguments to support the notion that the war had
nothing to do with slavery. Without slavery, there would have been no
war. It was the one subject on which the two sections could never
compromise.
> Because they served willingly with the Confederate army, is there an
> implication that they believed in the Confederate cause? What did they
> understand the Confederate cause to be, and, if they believed in it, why
> did they believe in it?
It should be implicit that, to some extent, blacks who willingly supported
the Confederacy believed in the success of the new nation's war effort.
Without evidence in their own words, we can only speculate what they
understood the cause to be or say why they believed in it. Certainly many
blacks were impelled by loyalty to their families, counties, and/or states
as were so many whites. They must have seen invading Union armies as a
threat to their homes and families. Free blacks undoubtedly wished to
preserve their social and economic positions, which placed them above that
of the slaves. Free black slave owners had as much to loose as their
white neighbors. The free blacks who enlisted in Confederate units must
have believed in the "cause" (however they defined it). Otherwise, they
would never had joined up in the first place or would have taken the first
opportunity to get out of the army.
Art Bergeron
--
"You know, there is such a thing as accurate and inaccurate. Irrespective of whatever your 'feelings' are."紀an Malcolm
Scribe7716
wrote
> It seems as if your late 1900s prejudices will not allow you to accept
>the fact that blacks, both slaves and freemen, willingly and
>enthusiastically supported the Confederacy despite evidence that they
>did.
After a Union cavalry raid through Rapides Parish, Louisiana, planter John
Ramsdell wrote his old friend Gov. Thomas Moore to give him an update on the
situation.
"Things are just now beginning to work right -- the negroes hated to get back
to work again. Several have been shot and probably more will have to be,"
Ramsdell wrote. "Chambers' down here -- have been acting very bad -- and the
overseer and five or six others ran off since Friday last. On Sunday the most
of those left were whipped and matters are getting better now.... Old Frank
and a number of others started too late -- our cavalry turned them back -- and
now Frank says he never had any idea of going with them. The recent trying
scenes through which we have passed convinced me that no dependence is to be
placed on the negro and that they are the greatest hypocrites and liars that
God ever made."
Now had I seen "several" of my comrades shot and others beaten, I too might
have made efforts to pass myself off as one who "willingly and enthusiastically
supported the Confederacy."
And while I might have fooled you some 130+ years later, it seems that I would
have been wasting my time with planter Ramsdell.
Art Bergeron
(Michael Furlan) wrote:
[snipping]
> As I said a year ago when we discussed this issue I am honored when a
> published author participates in this newsgroup. The time, effort and
> talent that goes into getting something into print should be
> recognized, and I applaud it.
I appreciate the compliment, but may I conclude that you remain
unconvinced that blacks supported the Confederacy?
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>Despite the way you have attempted to
>twist my words and to quote them out of context, the truth of the matter
>is that at least fifteen Louisiana free men of color served honorably as
>Confederate soldiers.
Citing out of context was one of my complaints about your article.
Consider the following:
A) "In 1779 A French force including 600 blacks joins American troops
attempting to take Savannah from the British. The Spanish governor of
Louisiana with an army consisting of from between 10 to 50% black
troops pushed the British out of Louisiana and then took Mobile and
Pensacola. Six black officers who fought in that campaign were cited
for bravery by the king of Spain." p. 14 THE AFRICAN AMERICAN
SOLDIER, Lanning
B) Free Men of Color enjoyed the rights of citizens of French
Louisiana and these rights were guaranteed by the treaty that
transferred Louisiana to the Americans.
C) A dozen years later 600 FMOC (10% of the American force) fight for
Andrew Jackson against the British at Chalmette in 1815 (The Battle of
New Orleans.)
D) But by 1859, "American" rules on race had almost completely
replaced the more tolerant European attitudes. The Louisiana
legislature passed laws saying that no black person could be free, and
that any free black must sell himself into slavery.
E) As you said yourself: ". . .until early 1865, the official policy
of the Confederate government prohibited blacks from serving as armed
soldiers." You've documented fraud, not "soldiers."
So in context of these facts the 15 cooks and laborers you've
documented seem a rather pathetic remnant of what was once a proud
military tradition. Somehow evading the CSA national law against
their enlistment, and "on the run" from the state law that demanded
that they be enslaved they probably thought that military service was
the best way to avoid a rather terrible fate. Count them in with the
sort of people like the Native Americans who rode with Custer, or the
Chechens fighting with the Russians today. They were people trying to
make the best of a really bad situation.
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>Whatever their skin tone, they were black Confederates.
I think that you are projecting American 20th century racial attitudes
back into an ante-bellum, French speaking society. What do you think
it means when,
A "Creole of Louisiana" says:
". . . they [FMOC] never associate with negroes. . .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Art Bergeron
scrib...@aol.com (Scribe7716) wrote:
[snipped]
It is well documented that dozens of slaves attempted and/or succeeded to
run away to nearby Union armies in Louisiana. What is not so well
documented is the horrible treatment they received from Union troops.
That some slaves in Rapides Parish (of which I am a native) were terribly
abused is also well known. It was no coincidence that Stowe placed _Uncle
Tom's Cabin_ in the Red River Valley of Louisiana. None of this means
that significant numbers of other slaves were not supportive of the
Confederate war effort.
Art Bergeron
(Michael Furlan) wrote:
[snipped]
Allow me to ask this again. Do you deny the existence of black
Confederate soldiers, both regularly enlisted and those who had occasion
to engage in combat?
Art Bergeron
Art Bergeron
(Michael Furlan) wrote:
[snipped]
Allow me to ask this again. Do you deny the existence of black
Confederate soldiers (from Louisiana or any other state)?
Art Bergeron
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:53:35 -0500, in soc.history.war.us-civil-war
> berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
> >Whatever their skin tone, they were black Confederates.
>
> I think that you are projecting American 20th century racial attitudes
> back into an ante-bellum, French speaking society. What do you think
> it means when,
>
> A "Creole of Louisiana" says:
>
> ". . . they [FMOC] never associate with negroes. . .
>
It is my impression that the FMOC generally used the term "Negro" as
synonymous with slave. Not all Louisiana FMOC were descendants of French
immigrants, and the great majority of Louisianians did not speak French in
1860.
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
If it is true that ". . .until early 1865, the official policy of the
Confederate government prohibited blacks from serving as armed
soldiers."
Then, if not fraud, what would you call blacks in the CSA army?
Art Bergeron
(Michael Furlan) wrote:
>
> Citing out of context was one of my complaints about your article.
> Consider the following:
I'm still not sure what you mean by insinuating that I cited things out of
context. In no place did I "cut and paste" to suit my argument.
> A) "In 1779 A French force including 600 blacks joins American troops
> attempting to take Savannah from the British. The Spanish governor of
> Louisiana with an army consisting of from between 10 to 50% black
> troops pushed the British out of Louisiana and then took Mobile and
> Pensacola. Six black officers who fought in that campaign were cited
> for bravery by the king of Spain." p. 14 THE AFRICAN AMERICAN
> SOLDIER, Lanning
>
> B) Free Men of Color enjoyed the rights of citizens of French
> Louisiana and these rights were guaranteed by the treaty that
> transferred Louisiana to the Americans.
>
> C) A dozen years later 600 FMOC (10% of the American force) fight for
> Andrew Jackson against the British at Chalmette in 1815 (The Battle of
> New Orleans.)
>
> D) But by 1859, "American" rules on race had almost completely
> replaced the more tolerant European attitudes. The Louisiana
> legislature passed laws saying that no black person could be free, and
> that any free black must sell himself into slavery.
In keeping with that tradition and despite repressive measures, at least
2,000 FMOC formed militia units and offered their services to the
Confederate army.
> E) As you said yourself: ". . .until early 1865, the official policy
> of the Confederate government prohibited blacks from serving as armed
> soldiers." You've documented fraud, not "soldiers."
>
> So in context of these facts the 15 cooks and laborers you've
> documented seem a rather pathetic remnant of what was once a proud
> military tradition. Somehow evading the CSA national law against
> their enlistment, and "on the run" from the state law that demanded
> that they be enslaved they probably thought that military service was
> the best way to avoid a rather terrible fate. Count them in with the
> sort of people like the Native Americans who rode with Custer, or the
> Chechens fighting with the Russians today. They were people trying to
> make the best of a really bad situation.
Your definition of "fraud" eludes me. To say that these 15 men were not
soldiers is to slander them and the sacrifices they made. As I have said
before, they were not strictly cooks and laborers even though some of them
were assigned to or forced into those duties. Charles Lutz fought in a
number of battles with the 8th Louisiana Infantry, was captured at Second
Fredericksburg, and was wounded and captured at Gettysburg. His injuries
forced him to go on furlough, and he was discharged in May 1865. Jean
Baptiste Pierre-Auguste fought throughout the Vicksburg Campaign, being
wounded and captured there. He was on duty with the 29th Louisiana
Infantry until the end of the war. Lufroy Pierre-Auguste fought in three
battles with the 16th Louisiana Infantry before being forced out of the
army. Gabriel Grappe's company was in a number of minor actions, and he
was paroled in June 1865. The Guillory's enlisted late in the war, and
their unit was never engaged with the enemy. That they did not see combat
was not their fault. They both received paroles in June 1865. McGhee
Grappe was paroled with the 6th Louisiana Cavalry at the end of the war.
The fates of three of his comrades is unknown. That he and his seven
fellow FMOC in that regiment saw no combat with the enemy is attributable
to the facts that the war in the Trans-Mississippi Department was
essentially over and that their regiment was assigned primarily to courier
duty. Jacques Esclavon enlisted in September 1864 and was with his unit
at least until March 1865. He and his comrades were in an area where no
combat occurred. I stand by my contention that each and every one of
these fifteen men were soldiers in the truest sense of the word. None of
these men was "on the run" from any state law. No one in Louisiana was
trying to force FMOC into slavery. These men decided to fight for their
homes and families.
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>. . . but may I conclude that you remain
>unconvinced that blacks supported the Confederacy?
For the free men of color to have supported the Confederacy they would
have, at a minimum, obeyed all pertinent state and federal laws. In
this case they should have honored the federal law that prohibited
black troops, and the state law that demanded that they sell
themselves into slavery. By evading those laws they showed that they
repudiated the central values of the CSA.
What they did support was the "French-Spanish, Roman Catholic heritage
of Louisiana." A heritage the acknowledged their citizenship, and
their right to serve as soldiers.
To this extent they were very similar to the female "soldiers", in
that their service in the army was a rebellion against rather than an
endorsement of the CSA (or USA).
A modern example would be someone who practices medicine without a
license. Such a man is in no way supporting the AMA.
Mark Pitcavage
Bergeron) wrote:
>Allow me to ask this again. Do you deny the existence of black
>Confederate soldiers, both regularly enlisted and those who had occasion
>to engage in combat?
I know of no one who denies the existence of black Confederate
soldiers. The point, however, is that there were hardly any. This is
a point that many people--including yourself--wish to deny.
Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D.
The Militia Watchdog, http://www.militia-watchdog.org
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>I'm still not sure what you mean by insinuating that I cited things out of
>context.
Out of historical context:
"The actions of these free blacks seem to argue for what may be to
some an unpopular conclusion. By volunteering for combat duty in
regular Confederate service, these men took what can be seen as the
final step of their acceptance or acculturation into the local white
societies where they lived."
p. 49, BLACK SOUTHERNERS IN GRAY, LOUISIANA'S FREE MEN OF COLOR,
Arthur W. Bergeron Jr.
In the context of the fact that Louisiana's gens de couleur libre were
far more accepted and acculturated in the French society previous to
the American take over of Louisiana in 1803 your interpretation is
completely reverse of what actually happened.
The acceptance of these men [as cooks as laborers in CSA army units
raised in Louisiana] was not an innovation of the Confederate States
of American, as you imply, but rather the pitiful remnant of a much
more extensive acceptance of the FMOC by the local white community. An
acceptance that the Americans, and later the short lived Confederacy
attempted to and nearly succeeded in obliterating. The outbreak of
the Civil War was not the dawning of a new age of racial tolerance in
Louisiana, quite the reverse. What you found were artifacts of an
old, kinder and gentler era.
"With the transfer of Louisiana to the United States, the position of
the free man of color became increasingly restricted."
"In 1806, the first American revisions in the black code appeared,
limiting the privileges of all men of color, slave or free. Strict
immigration laws were passed to prevent an influx of more free people
of color from the French West Indies. Those already in Louisiana were
required to appear before authorities and give proof of their freedom
or be classed as runaway slaves. Any free people of color carrying
guns were required to carry also their freedom papers.
In 1808 the territorial legislature decreed that all public documents
referring to free people of color must contain the words "free man of
color" or "free woman of color" or the appropriate abbreviation after
the surname of the individual. In 1812, when Louisiana was granted
statehood, suffrage was limited to whites. During the next
half-century many additional restrictions were placed upon the free
Creoles of color, denying him such rights of citizenship as MILITARY
and jury service and taking from him various social and economic
privileges.
SUCH CHANGES WERE NOT ALWAYS READILY ACCEPTED, EVEN BY THE WHITE
CREOLE POPULATION. According to one authority, "When the ancient
customs and traditions conflicted with the [new American] code, there
were many in Louisiana who sought to evade and nullify the law."
p. 196-197, The Forgotten People, Mills
American and later CSA rule was like something like "agent orange" and
was 97.5% effective in eradicating the foliage of interracial
brotherhood of the previously French Louisiana. You come across the
few surviving sprouts and say, "Look! it (the CSA) is not a poison
it's a fertilizer."
The ancestors of the men you discuss had the right of military service
under the French and Spanish. This right and the other rights of
citizenship were guaranteed in the treaty transferring Louisiana to
the United States. 600 of their ancestors served with Andrew Jackson
as unambiguous combat soldiers in the War of 1812.
The 15 you document are remarkable not because they wanted to be
soldiers, their families had many generations of men in arms to look
back upon to inspire them. They and their white neighbors are amazing
because they successfully evaded CSA law.
But in no way shape or form can this story be construed as the "final
step of their acceptance or acculturation" into the local white
society. Those folks and their white neighbors were doing much much
better before the Americans and their far more restrictive racial
attitudes came along.
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
"Known as gens de couleur libre (free men of color or FMOC), the men
and women of this society were neither black nor white. They
successfully rejected identification with any established racial order
and achieved recognition as a distinct ethnic group. . ."
p. xiii, THE FORGOTTEN PEOPLE, Mills
>generally used the term "Negro" as
>synonymous with slave.
"Preservation of this third racial class in Louisiana society was
contingent upon strict adherence to the caste system by its members.
Just as whites entertained feelings of superiority to Negroes, so did
Louisiana's gens de couleur libre. Often possessing more white blood
than black, and quite often on good terms with and publicly recognized
by their white relatives, most members of this third caste in
Louisiana were reared to believe that they were a race apart from the
blacks, who occupied the lowest stratum of society. Countless
testimonials reveal their inherent pride in their French or Spanish
heritage and their identification with the white rather than the black
race."
p. xiv, Mills
> Not all Louisiana FMOC were descendants of French
>immigrants,
(Yes some were Spanish descendants.)
"A circumscribed three-caste system appeared precisely in the areas
of French and Spanish influence: Louisiana, of course; Charleston and
lowland South Carolina, with their early Huguenot settlers and later
emigres from Saint-Domingue; and the Gulf Coast of Alabama, with came
to the United States as part of the Florida cession."
p. 408, ROLL, JORDAN, ROLL, Genovese
>and the great majority of Louisianians did not speak French in 1860.
Speaking of the Cane River Creoles:
"By the late antebellum period the younger members had acknowledged
the necessity of learning the English language, but their common
language and their culture remained French."
p. 228, Mills
As late as just 20 years ago in New Orleans upon meeting an elderly
black man I was addressed first in French, because it was the polite
thing to do, and it was assumed that any cultured person could speak
the language.
Michael Furlan
Pitcavage <spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
>I know of no one who denies the existence of black Confederate
>soldiers.
As I've been struggling to explain, the particular men we've been
discussing, the Louisiana FMOC, didn't think that they were black.
And this self perception, and the degree to which it was shared by the
local white community is central to understanding how they got into
military units raised in Louisiana.
The sons, grandsons, ggrandsons (etc.) of white slave owners these
people identified with the local white ruling class.
". . . even under the Americans, military conditions during Indian
wars, slave risings, and the War of 1812 allowed the free Negroes to
maintain their tradition rights by loyalty to the slave holders
regime." p. 408, ROLL, JORDAN, ROLL, Genovese
". . . In most states, men of this class (FMOC) were looked upon as a
"pariah group." In Louisiana, they were more or less tolerated by the
"American" element, and it is doubtful that even this marginal
toleration would have existed had it not been for the fact that so
many of the white Creoles felt a closer affinity with the Catholic,
French-speaking gens de couleur libre than they did with the
English-speaking Protestant migrants from the "American" states.
Moreover, the affinity of the white Creoles for the Creole of color
was generally returned in kind, and therein lay the basis for most of
the privileges allowed the Louisiana nonwhite.
p. 215-216, THE FORGOTTEN PEOPLE, Mills
And:
"The cultural rift between the third-caste society of Isle Brevelle
and the black/slave society that they left behind them was evident in
all aspects of their lives--in their religion, their economic
pursuits, and their social activities. . . .
The rigid barrier between the classes of nonwhites on Isle Brevelle
was most evident at the matrimonial altar. In contrast to situations
which existed elsewhere, no instance appeared throughout the history
of the colony in which a Cane River Creole of color was wed to either
a black or a slave. Both represented castes that were culturally,
socially, and economically inferior, and marriage beneath one's caste
was a taboo that none of them dared to breach in this period."
p. 209-210, THE FORGOTTEN PEOPLE, Mills
So to call FMOC in the CSA military "black" would have been an insult
to them. And it would have been an insult to the black Louisianans,
who probably considered those folks a bunch of god damn "wanna bees."
It has been argued that by the social standards of the CSA these men
were considered black.
Well then, if we accept CSA definitions in this respect then it is
only logical to agree that they were not soldiers, because the CSA
prohibited blacks from being soldiers.
The only way out of this confusion is to understand the full story,
that these men were not "black." That their long association with
their white neighbors through blood, economic and social relations is
the key to understanding how they found their way into those Louisiana
military units.
Bill Wright
>
> During the next half-century many additional restrictions were
> placed upon the free Creoles of color, denying him such rights of
> citizenship as MILITARY and jury service and taking from him
> various social and economic privileges.
Excellent post, Mike, but I noticed that you called military and jury service as
"rights" of citizenship while calling social and economic relations as
"privileges". At least today, I think a lot of Americans think of these things
as vice versa.
Bill
Art Bergeron
(Michael Furlan) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:53:35 -0500, in soc.history.war.us-civil-war
> berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
> >There was no "fraud" involved.
>
> If it is true that ". . .until early 1865, the official policy of the
> Confederate government prohibited blacks from serving as armed
> soldiers."
>
> Then, if not fraud, what would you call blacks in the CSA army?
>
Some were soldiers; others were cooks, laborers, and servants. The fact
that the Confederate government's official policy was to deny blacks the
chance to become soldiers does not make those who succeeded in serving
"frauds." That term demeans them and the sacrifices they made.
Art Bergeron
--
"You know, there is such a thing as accurate and inaccurate. Irrespective of
whatever your 'feelings' are."--Ian Malcolm
Art Bergeron
<spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
> I know of no one who denies the existence of black Confederate
> soldiers. The point, however, is that there were hardly any. This is
> a point that many people--including yourself--wish to deny.
>
As I have stated in more than one note, the notion that "there were hardly
any" black Confederate soldiers is patently untrue. There clearly were
thousands of blacks who willingly aided the Confederacy as soldiers
(either regularly enlisted or "spur of the moment") or as non-combatants.
We have both firm evidence and circumstantial evidence (similar to that on
women soldiers) to that fact. It is unfortunate that there is not more
firm evidence of the men who were regularly enlisted soldiers, but the
fact of their existence makes many people feel uncomfortable. The people
who are really in denial are those who wish to pretend that no black
person could support the Confederate war effort. To support that
contention is to argue that black people in the 1860s could not be
individuals and have individual thought but must all be grouped together.
Roger Safian
>In article <nrZrOEyOYXKNLy...@4ax.com>, Mark Pitcavage
><spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
>
>> I know of no one who denies the existence of black Confederate
>> soldiers. The point, however, is that there were hardly any. This is
>> a point that many people--including yourself--wish to deny.
>>
>As I have stated in more than one note, the notion that "there were hardly
>any" black Confederate soldiers is patently untrue. There clearly were
>thousands of blacks who willingly aided the Confederacy as soldiers
>(either regularly enlisted or "spur of the moment") or as non-combatants.
FWIW, although this topic is one that I would normally jump on, I've been
reluctant to do so, becuase I have been unable to find your book in any of the
local libraries. That being said though, I must confess that I find your
claim of "thousands of blacks who willingly aided the Confederacy" to be
unsupported by the historical record.
You've documented potentially 15 cases, I don't see how you can go from that
to "thousands". I also do not see how you can make such a claim when the
historical record is very clear that the South did *not* want blacks to be in
fighting units, until very late in the war.
Could I ask you to tell me how you resolved these issues?
--
Roger A. Safian
r-sa...@nwu.edu (email) finger ro...@grumpy.nsg.nwu.edu for public key
(847) 491-4058 (voice)
(847) 467-5690 (Fax) "You're never too old to have a great childhood!"
Scribe7716
wrote:
>There clearly were
>thousands of blacks who willingly aided the Confederacy as soldiers
>(either regularly enlisted or "spur of the moment")
If there were these thousands of black soldiers why the shock at outrage at
Cleburne's suggestion that slaves be enlisted in the CSA armies, and why the
later reluctance that required R.E. Lee's endorsement to get the enlistment of
slaves through the CSA Congress.
> or as non-combatants.
Sprinkled throughout CSA reports during the war are compliants from officers
over the reluctance of slaveowners to give over their slaves -- even
temporarily -- to war service as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Are we
to believe that the slaves were more willing to serve the CSA than their owners
were to have them serve?
Mark Pitcavage
Bergeron) wrote:
>In article <nrZrOEyOYXKNLy...@4ax.com>, Mark Pitcavage
><spa...@militia-watchdog.org> wrote:
>
>> I know of no one who denies the existence of black Confederate
>> soldiers. The point, however, is that there were hardly any. This is
>> a point that many people--including yourself--wish to deny.
>>
>As I have stated in more than one note, the notion that "there were hardly
>any" black Confederate soldiers is patently untrue. There clearly were
>thousands of blacks who willingly aided the Confederacy as soldiers
>(either regularly enlisted or "spur of the moment") or as non-combatants.
>We have both firm evidence and circumstantial evidence (similar to that on
>women soldiers) to that fact. It is unfortunate that there is not more
>firm evidence of the men who were regularly enlisted soldiers, but the
>fact of their existence makes many people feel uncomfortable.
I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. The only way you can come up
with "thousands of blacks" is by greatly extending the definition of
"soldier" to include all sorts of categories and situations--as you
yourself seem to admit in the above post--that the Confederates
themselves never would have categorized as soldiers. I've seen the
"research" and it is shallow at best. It is certainly not convincing.
Art Bergeron
Safian) wrote:
[snipping]
>
> FWIW, although this topic is one that I would normally jump on, I've been
> reluctant to do so, becuase I have been unable to find your book in any
of the
> local libraries. That being said though, I must confess that I find your
> claim of "thousands of blacks who willingly aided the Confederacy" to be
> unsupported by the historical record.
>
> You've documented potentially 15 cases, I don't see how you can go from that
> to "thousands". I also do not see how you can make such a claim when the
> historical record is very clear that the South did *not* want blacks to be in
> fighting units, until very late in the war.
>
> Could I ask you to tell me how you resolved these issues?
I did not document "potentially" 15 cases; the evidence is irrefutable.
My research showed that at least 2,000 FMOC from Louisiana wanted to join
the Confederate army but were prevented from doing so by the government's
official policy. These men were so committed to protecting their homes
and families that they found ways around that official policy and fought
anyway. There are similar cases from other states, and the research by
scholars like Edgar Smith and Ervin Jordan has shown that thousands of
slaves willingly and enthusiastically aided the Confederacy. The latter
has an article in the same publication in which mine appeared. He wrote:
"Confederate Virginia was a biracial society, a society intertwined with
black and white influences. As a minority within a minority,
pro-Confederate blacks have received little scholarly research. Numerous
Afro-Virginians, free blacks and slaves, were genuine Southern loyalists,
not as a consequence of white pressure but due to their own preferences.
They are the Civil War's forgotten people, yet their existence was more
widespread than American history has recorded. Their bones rest in
unhonored glory in Southern soil, shrouded by falsehoods, indifference and
historians' censorship." Modern prejudices are responsible for that
censorship.
Richard Sinyard
commanders, 10 regimental commanders and one of Wheeler's cavalry signed
his proposal.
Regards,
Richard Sinyard
43rd Alabama Infantry Page
www.geocities.com/pentagon/barracks/3313/index.html
"About dark on the 17th grave disaster to the Confederates seemed imminent,
When Gracie's brigade of Alabamians,
gallantly leaped over the works and drove the assailants back, capturing a
thousand or more prisoners."
LtCol Charles S. Venable C.S.A. Lee's Staff
"Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:67dzOG7NR3LzaB...@4ax.com...
> >(Art Bergeron)
>
> wrote:
>
> >There clearly were
> >(either regularly enlisted or "spur of the moment")
>
Scribe7716
wrote:
>> [Scribe7716] If there were these thousands of black soldiers why the shock
at outrage
>at
>> Cleburne's suggestion that slaves be enlisted in the CSA armies,
>How much shock and outrage was there really, All Cleburne's Brigade
>commanders, 10 regimental commanders and one of Wheeler's cavalry signed
>his proposal.
But all of Cleburne's peers at division command and superiors at corps command
rejected the proposal.
According to Steven E. Woodworth, _Jefferson Davis and His Generals_, "Many of
the officers were simply dumbfounded by Cleburne's suggestion. Most of the
rest were besides themselves with rage." And Shelby Foote quotes one AoT major
general as writing a friend that Cleburne's proposal to enlist slaves was a
"monstrous proposition... revolting to Southern sentiment, Southern pride and
southern honor" and predicting the army was dissolve is such a proposal were
carried out.
Maj. Gen. W.H.T. Walker thought the proposal near treason and forwarded it to
Jefferson Davis. Secretary of War James Seddon then wrote Gen. Joe Johnston of
"the earnest conviction of the President that the dissemination or even the
promulgation of such opinions under the present circumstances of the
Confederacy, whether in the army or among the people, can be productive only of
discouragement, distraction and dissension."
It would take another year and the personal prestige of Gen. Robert E. Lee to
get the CSA to act on enlisting slaves.
Roger Safian
>I did not document "potentially" 15 cases; the evidence is irrefutable.
By potentially, I meant the position they held while in the service. (cook
vs. soldier) I don't dispute your numbers.
>My research showed that at least 2,000 FMOC from Louisiana wanted to join
>the Confederate army but were prevented from doing so by the government's
>official policy. These men were so committed to protecting their homes
There's the basic problem. 2000 wanted to fight, 15 were able to on some
level. The fact that less than 1% of your researched numbers were actually
able to fight is a very striking number. (to me anyway)
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>As I have stated in more than one note, the notion that "there were hardly
>thousands of blacks who willingly aided the Confederacy as soldiers
How can they be soldiers is the CSA said they were not soldiers? You
can't complain of "presentism" in your detractors arguments while
making your entire presentation depend upon a different definition of
soldier than that used by Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee.
>We have both firm evidence and circumstantial evidence (similar to that on
>women soldiers) to that fact. It is unfortunate that there is not more
>firm evidence of the men who were regularly
Existence doesn't make anything regular. The corner crack dealer can
not be considered a "regular" pharmacist, just because he hasn't been
arrested yet.
>enlisted soldiers, but the
>fact of their existence makes many people feel uncomfortable.
Agreed. [Just don't include me in that number. <g> ]
"Oscar Wilde put his finger on the deeper strata of the problem when
he wrote in his essay THE SOUL OF MAN UNDER SOCIALISM, "To the
thinker, the most tragic fact in the whole of the French Revolution is
not that Marie Antoinette was killed for being a queen, but that the
starved peasants of the Vendee voluntarily went out to die for the
hideous cause of feudalism". Nor was that a unique instance: slaves
have helped defend cities in a siege, rebellious Spartan helots also
fought in Spartan armies at times, even in expeditionary forces
abroad--the examples can be multiplied. . ."
p. 303-304, ANCIENT SLAVERY AND MODERN IDEOLOGY, Finley, edited by
Shaw
The remarkable fact of "black soldiers" in the CSA was not that there
were so "many", but that there were so few.
Black troops were not a novelty in North America before the US Civil
War. Blacks fought for Spain and were decorated for bravery by the
King. They were guaranteed the right to form their own militia units
by the French. Their services were requested by Andrew Jackson in the
War of 1812 and 600 of them fought in the Battle of New Orleans.
So when you find 15 in an state where 600 of a smaller community had
previously served what you've demonstrated is that the CSA was not
100% effective in rubbing out a long standing local tradition.
>The people
>who are really in denial are those who wish to pretend that no black
>person
You've failed to provide such evidence. Free Men of Color didn't
consider themselves "black."
>could support the Confederate war effort.
That some men who were mostly "white" genetically, who were
descendants of slaveowners, and who were often slaveowners themselves
supported the CSA is not remarkable.
>To support that
>contention is to argue that black people in the 1860s could not be
>individuals and have individual thought but must all be grouped together.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mark Pitcavage
wrote:
>In article <ERN1OIWjJeD=TaUBCNu6...@4ax.com>, berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art
>Bergeron) wrote:
>>I did not document "potentially" 15 cases; the evidence is irrefutable.
>
>By potentially, I meant the position they held while in the service. (cook
>vs. soldier) I don't dispute your numbers.
>
>>My research showed that at least 2,000 FMOC from Louisiana wanted to join
>>the Confederate army but were prevented from doing so by the government's
>>official policy. These men were so committed to protecting their homes
>
>There's the basic problem. 2000 wanted to fight, 15 were able to on some
>level. The fact that less than 1% of your researched numbers were actually
>able to fight is a very striking number. (to me anyway)
It also seems clear from the available evidence that many free blacks
across the South were eager to try to demonstrate their loyalty to the
Confederacy because they knew how easily white Southerners would turn
on them.
James F. Epperson
> My research showed that at least 2,000 FMOC from Louisiana wanted to join
> the Confederate army but were prevented from doing so by the government's
> official policy. These men were so committed to protecting their homes
> and families that they found ways around that official policy and fought
> anyway. There are similar cases from other states, and the research by
> scholars like Edgar Smith and Ervin Jordan has shown that thousands of
> slaves willingly and enthusiastically aided the Confederacy.
But Art, you've engaged in the kind of "definitional drift" here that
almost always plagues these discussions. No one (that I am aware of)
denies that there were lots of blacks (including some slaves) who
"willingly and enthusiastically aided the Confederacy." But now you are
not talking about *soldiers* anymore, you are talking about slaves doing
what slaves did. Moreover, your first sentence as quoted above is also
very revealing: The 2,000 men you found wanted to be Confederate soldiers
*but were not allowed to be* so they had to find ways around the rules.
And, I would suggest that you are stretching the bounds of inference to
conclude that they were fighting for their homes and families in the same
way that the ordinary Johnny Reb was; the place of the FMOC within
southern society was very fragile, and I think it is very likely they were
fighting as much to validate themselves and their standing as they were
fighting for the Confederacy.
Jim Epperson http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and
it holds the universe together ...
-- Carl Zwanzig
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>These men were so committed to protecting their homes
>and families that they found ways around that official policy and fought
>anyway.
White Southerners (from outside the Indian Territory) enlisted in
"Indian" regiments. They had no homes and families in the Indian
Territory to defend.
Anyone know or want to guess why they enlisted there? It's a clue to
understanding what I think about the FMOC and their motives.
> There are similar cases from other states, and the research by
>scholars like Edgar Smith and Ervin Jordan has shown that thousands of
>slaves willingly and enthusiastically
A slave, by definition cannot "willing and enthusiastically" do
anything. They could chose the least of two evils.
>aided the Confederacy. The latter
>has an article in the same publication in which mine appeared. He wrote:
>"Confederate Virginia was a biracial society, a society intertwined with
>black and white influences. As a minority within a minority,
>pro-Confederate blacks have received little scholarly research. Numerous
>Afro-Virginians, free blacks and slaves, were genuine Southern loyalists,
>not as a consequence of white pressure but due to their own preferences.
"What is agreed, by and large, is that the slaves as a class somehow
accommodated themselves to their mode of existence: as a class, that
is to say that the open rebels, the fugitives, and psychotic
withdrawers, and so on, were never more than a small minority, who may
have frightened the slaveowners, but did not disturb the system. How
they achieved this accommodation is still an open question, with
answers ranging, in crude terms, from the Sambo stereotype to the
Horatio Alger stereotype."
p. 305, ANCIENT SLAVERY AND MODERN IDEOLOGY, Finely & Shaw
>They are the Civil War's forgotten people, yet their existence was more
>widespread than American history has recorded. Their bones rest in
>unhonored glory in Southern soil, shrouded by falsehoods, indifference and
>historians' censorship." Modern prejudices are responsible for that
>censorship.
But I've been quoting modern sources on this topic.
Maybe you could give me a specific example of censorship of prejudice?
Michael Furlan
more accomplished participants:
Arthur W. Bergeron, Jr., is the historian of the Pamplin Park Civil
War Site.
http://www.pamplinpark.org/mainmenu.html
His published works include:
Black Southerners in Gray : Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate
Armies
Arthur W. Bergeron(Editor), et al / Paperback / Published 1997
The Chronological Tracking of the American Civil War; Per the Official
Records of the War of the Rebellion
Ronald A. Mosocco, Arthur W. Bergeron (Designer) / Hardcover /
Published 1995
The Civil War Reminiscences of Major Silas T. Grisamore, C.S.A.
Silas, et al / Hardcover / Published 1993
Guide to Louisiana Confederate Military Units 1861-1865
Arthur W., Jr. Bergeron / Paperback / Published 1996
Confederate Mobile
Arthur W. Bergeron
I'd be interested in similar information on your favorite authors.
Art Bergeron
Furlan) wrote:
> Here is some biographical, and bibliographic information for one of
> more accomplished participants:
>
>
> The Chronological Tracking of the American Civil War; Per the Official
> Records of the War of the Rebellion
> Ronald A. Mosocco, Arthur W. Bergeron (Designer) / Hardcover /
> Published 1995
>
Actually, I only wrote an introduction to the second edition of Ron's
book. He and his publisher were responsible for the design.
Bob Huddleston
have someone with his qualifications posting here.
Indeed, perhaps it is *because* I disagree that I enjoy his polite and
fact-based answers! :>)
Take care,
Bob
--
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
303-451-6376 ad...@email.msn.com
"Michael Furlan" <fur...@agoron.com> wrote in message
news:387fe434...@tao.agoron.com...
> Here is some biographical, and bibliographic information for one of
> more accomplished participants:
>
> Arthur W. Bergeron, Jr., is the historian of the Pamplin Park Civil
> War Site.
>
> http://www.pamplinpark.org/mainmenu.html
>
> His published works include:
>
> Black Southerners in Gray : Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate
> Armies
> Arthur W. Bergeron(Editor), et al / Paperback / Published 1997
>
> The Chronological Tracking of the American Civil War; Per the Official
> Records of the War of the Rebellion
> Ronald A. Mosocco, Arthur W. Bergeron (Designer) / Hardcover /
> Published 1995
>
Michael Furlan
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:39:58 -0500, berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art
Bergeron) wrote:
>Several years ago, I published an article that documented beyond question
>that fifteen free blacks from Louisiana voluntarily and enthusiastically
>enlisted as soldiers in regular Confederate units from that state.
A while back, while looking up something else I found out that one of
the units of "free men of color" at the battle of New Orleans in 1815
was entirely composed of refugees from the Haitian Revolution. Now
why would "black" people have to flee the only successful black slave
revolt in history?
The answer pretty much explains Prof. Bergeron's finding of voluntary
and enthusiastic support by free men of color for the CSA.
"The Free Persons of Color [In Haiti]
"There were approximately 30,000 free persons of color in 1789. About
half of them were mulattoes, children of white Frenchmen and slave
women.
[snip]
The other half of the free persons of color were black slaves who had
purchased their own freedom or been given freedom by their masters for
various reasons.
[snip]
The free persons of color could own plantations and owned a large
portion of the slaves. They often treated their slaves poorly and
almost always wanted to draw distinct lines between themselves and the
slaves. Free people of color were usually strongly pro-slavery."
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/revolution/revolution1.htm
It is a long complicated story, but "when the Revolution came:"
"the natural allies of the white planter's were the free people of
color. Both were from the wealthy class, both supported independence
and slavery and neither wanted to change the traditional control of
society by wealthy propertied people."
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/revolution/revolution1.htm
This natural antipathy between the slaves and the mulattoes was
finally resolved:
". . . an internal power struggle beg[a]n. Toussaint shared the same
rank as did Andre Rigaud, mulatto general of the south and Villatte,
another mulatto who was at Cap Francois. The two mulattos were
suspicious of Toussaint and dreaded his rise to power. They plotted
against both the French and Toussaint planning to consolidate their
own positions."
But they failed, and:
"Laveaux rewarded Toussaint on April 1st by making him lieutenant
governor, giving him much greater freedom within the
military, and pledging he would do nothing without consulting
Toussaint. This declaration was tantamount to making Toussaint
the effective governor and commander in chief. Toussaint responded,
"After God, Laveaux." The mulattos had suffered a terrible defeat."
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/revolution/revolution2.htm
Things then got worse, much worse and many of the mulattoes had to
flee the country in fear of losing their lives. Some of them came to
Louisiana, where they joined a very similar society. They and their
children, as they had in Haiti allied themselves with the white
slaveowers against the interests of the black slaves.
So we have two stories, the Haitian Revolution, and the American Civil
War. In each the role of the 'free men of color" is very similar.
They allied themselves with the white slaveowners, and fought [or
wished to fight] mostly against the interests of the black slaves.
The major difference is that the whites of Haiti, were not as
stubbornly devoted to racism as the whites of the CSA:
"On September 20, 1791 the Colonial Assembly recognized the Paris
decree of May, and they even took it a step further. They recognized
the citizenship of all free people of color, regardless of their
property and birth status. Thus the battle lines were drawn with all
the free people, regardless of color, on the one side, and the black
slaves and maroons on the other."
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/revolution/revolution1.htm
>From this perspective, the most remarkable attribute of the story told
by Prof. Bergeron is not that "free men of color" fought for the CSA,
but that so _few_ fought for the CSA. And the main reason why wasn't
that "free men of color" didn't have the motivation to do so, but that
the white people of the CSA valued the concept of white supremacy more
than the concrete reality of a powerful ally in their war for
independence.
Main page for the Haitian Revolution site:
http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/revolution/revolution.htm
Art Bergeron
(Michael Furlan) wrote:
[snipped]
Thanks for the validation of what I've been "preaching" for so long. I'll
not get into a long discussion of how "racist" the Confederacy was, but it
is clear that thousands of men were turned away from the Confederate
armies by ill-advised policies.
Nicholas Geovanis
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:39:58 -0500, berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art
> Bergeron) wrote:
> >Several years ago, I published an article that documented beyond question
> >that fifteen free blacks from Louisiana voluntarily and enthusiastically
> >enlisted as soldiers in regular Confederate units from that state.
>
> A while back, while looking up something else I found out that one of
> the units of "free men of color" at the battle of New Orleans in 1815
> was entirely composed of refugees from the Haitian Revolution. Now
> why would "black" people have to flee the only successful black slave
> revolt in history?
>
> The answer pretty much explains Prof. Bergeron's finding of voluntary
> and enthusiastic support by free men of color for the CSA.
Most interesting, but not unexpected. Another piece of evidence that class
has great explanatory power in American history, especially the Civil War.
There just isn't enough time to read all of those history books, so I
know nothing of Haiti's history, but now I'll finally have to pick up "The
Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution" by
C.L.R. James. James was a Barbadian who became a leader of the Trotskyist
movement in the 1930s and 1940s. The Haitian revolution had great
resonance in the South. I've read that Charleston, SC., passed a law
confining free black sailors arriving from the West Indies to the city
jail between voyages, for fear that they would spread insurrection.
Incidentally I used to work with a Liberian man who was descended from
American slaves "colonized" back to Liberia on his mother's side, and
native Liberians on his father's side. He explained to me the class
differences between the two groups, roughly analogous to what you have
described, with the freed American slaves as the dominant class.
Apparently marriages which crossed the class divide like his parents' were
quite rare. You knew that the capitol of Liberia, Monrovia, was named
after President Monroe, yes? Have you ever seen the Liberian flag? Does it
look familiar? See http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/lr.html#exp
Thanks Michael!
+-------------------->
| Nick Geovanis Indeed I tremble for my country when
| IT Computing Svcs I reflect that God is just: that his
| Northwestern Univ justice cannot sleep forever...
V n-geo...@nwu.edu - Thomas Jefferson, 1781
Michael Furlan
berg...@ix.netcom.com (Art Bergeron) wrote:
>Thanks for the validation of what I've been "preaching" for so long.
One point not yet driven home is just how unique the Louisiana FMOC
were. The standard image of Black Confederates is probably the cover
of BLACK SOUTHERNS IN GRAY. Contrast that picture
with one of the Louisiana FMOC, Pinckney B. S. Pinchback on the page:
http://www.agoron.com/~furlanm/fmoc.html
While Mr. Pinchback fought for the Union, one glance should tell you
that it wouldn't have been remarkable that some men of his complexion
would identify more with "white" folks than with black slaves. And
that some men who looked like that might have easily evaded CSA law and
served in Louisiana military units.