The June 26 issue of Civil War Emancipation discussed an unintentional defect of the Contraband of War policy–that it only gave refuge to slaves of disloyal owners, while slaves of both loyal and disloyal owners wanted to be free. The policy’s weakness was illustrated in late June 1861, when George, the slave of a Rockville, Maryland woman, fled her custody and was allegedly taken in by Ohio troops. As the Ohio soldiers were part of Irvin McDowell’s Army of Northeastern Virginia, McDowell ordered Brig. Gen. Robert C. Schenck, a brigade commander in Daniel Tyler’s division, to investigate.
There was silence on the matter until July 5, when commander of the 1st Ohio Infantry, Col. Alexander M. McCook wrote the Assistant Adjutant of Schenck’s brigade, Donn Piatt. His letter stated:
Mr. Noland or a man named Sergeant Noland, a messenger in the War Department, handed me a letter from Col. E. D. Townsend, assistant adjutant-general, U. S. Army, in which Colonel Townsend states “from Mr. Noland’s account the Ohio troops have been practicing a little of the abolition system in protecting runaways.” I was very much surprised to hear such sentiments expressed by the chief of staff about my brave men. I then told the Messrs. Noland that the man who gave Colonel T. such information stated what was false and that if he was the person I would have no hesitancy in marching him out of camp. Sergeant Noland denied in the presence of my entire staff that he had ever given Colonel Townsend any such information; that he, Colonel T., was in no manner authorized to make such a statement; and more than that had he known what the contents of the letter was he would not have delivered it. I then told Sergeant Noland that he might have been mistaken about having seen his negro in my camp; that even if he had the negro might have been in the camp temporarily. I then told him to go to the Connecticut camps but he did not go.
Whether the slave George actually was in the camp of 1st Ohio Infantry is unknown from Col. McCook’s letter and not important historically. But from the last paragraph it is clear that even in the earliest months of the war, African Americans found ways to attach themselves to the Union army. No doubt, most if all not all of them were slaves, so even if these Ohio troops were not “practicing a little of the abolition system in protecting runaways,” clearly the army as a whole already was effectively acting as abolitionists (even if they did not intend so), and not just for the slaves of disloyal owners, but also for those of presumably loyal owners like Caroline Noland. Many soldiers and officers found escaped slaves could provide all manner of useful services they were loath to do without. Likewise, just as white Northerners had found enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act distasteful at home in the 185os, their feelings had not changed in the 1860s as they moved into slave territory as soldiers. Alexander McCook’s hostility to the Noland family in his letter clearly manifests that attitude. It would have much to do with the role of the Union army in undermining the slave system early in the Civil War. While they were ready to fight for Union, they did not see slave catching as part of that mission.
Source:
http://www.simmonsgames.com/research/authors/USWarDept/ORA/OR-S2-V1-C4.html
