Comments on: Were There Black Soldiers in July 1861?

By: Research Notes « Crossroads

Research Notes « Crossroads — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:20:20 +0000

[...] on the accounts of others, as he was not in position to observe such soldiers firsthand. Don points to a Congressional debate as offering additional discussion, while Andy tracks down the roots of another story, with some [...]

By: Frederick Douglass Reads the Paper « Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:17:19 +0000

[...] involvement of African Americans in the Confederate army in a variety of capacities is discussed. Shaffer concludes, “it is apparent from the debate above that some servants and other African Americans [...]

By: Donald R. Shaffer

Donald R. Shaffer — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:38:14 +0000

Hi Marc. I just sent a research request to the Manuscripts Division at the Library of Congress, which holds Simon Cameron’s papers. I’ll let you know what sort of response I get.

By: marcferguson

marcferguson — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:49:53 +0000

Cameron’s correspondence would certainly be fascinating. I look forward to seeing what you find.

By: Donald R. Shaffer

Donald R. Shaffer — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:35:43 +0000

Hi Marc. Thanks for your contribution. But I’d still like to find if some African Americans with the armies in July 1861 really had firearms and why? I seriously doubt if any of them were the mythical “black Confederates” but it is interesting the members of Congress wanted to investigate the matter. I’ll have to look into finding Simon Cameron’s correspondence from this period. I’m really curious how he responded to this resolution.

By: marcferguson

marcferguson — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:51:00 +0000

“So while this U.S. House debate in late July 1861 does not substantiate that there were black soldiers in either the Union or Confederate forces at that early moment of the Civil War, it is apparent from the debate above that some servants and other African Americans attached to both armies were armed. This did not make them soldiers officially, but it does make murkier the line dividing soldiers and civilians attached to the armies in the Civil War.”

Actually, I think it speaks to the murkiness of the emerging debate over the federal response to slaves coming within Union lines, the role blacks, Northern and Southern, would play in the war, and how to understand, and respond to, the relationship between Southern slavery and a clear war aim focusing on preserving the Union and rejecting secession. All of this would take a couple of years to work out.

By: Donald R. Shaffer

Donald R. Shaffer — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:54:25 +0000

Hi Brooks–an excellent question. I think it was a bit of both. Burnett definitely indicates he saw personally armed African Americans in federal uniform. My guess is that they were servants who had acquired part or the whole of a federal uniform to replace whatever they were wearing when they escaped their plantations. Many slaves came into Union army camps in rags. Since army uniforms were the only clothing readily available that is what they were given to wear. As to the arms, they might have acquired them in camp or possibly come with them when they escaped. Some slaves had assess to firearms or could have possibly stolen them from their owners or other whites before or during their escape. Burnett also could be exaggerating since he had an agenda he was pushing–who knows?

As to the other congressional evidence, it is not as clear whether it was a personal observation or not. Enough congressman were at Bull Run/Manassas that some may seen personally what they mentioned or they had talked to people who had been there. In any case, their evidence is much more direct than Frederick Douglass. I just hope neo-Confederates will not misuse this congressional evidence the way they have misused Douglass. We shall see.

By: Brooks D. Simpson

Brooks D. Simpson — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:30:01 +0000

Actually, the post in question (including the comments discussion) leaves open the notion that Douglass was quoting sources he’d come across:

“Only if we want to concede that Douglass was simply passing on second-hand reports would his whereabouts become irrelevant (although his sources of information would then become important). That would mean that citing Frederick Douglass as a witness would be bad history.”

That Douglass was simply passing along what he had heard is different than saying that Douglass witnessed something himself. We then have to turn to the reports to find out what was going on, and ask the same question of the congressmen who participated in the debate you describe: are they reporting what they saw, or what they heard?