Did free blacks support the Confederacy during the Civil War? Novel on blacks in Confederate South

Did free blacks support the Confederacy during the Civil War?

About 10 years ago, this was the question Winston Jones of West Chester asked himself.

What he discovered was that, yes, free blacks did support the Confederacy and in November, he independently published a novel "For God, Country and the Confederacy" through First Books, based on those findings.

The novel follows the St. Claire family, a free black family who owns a farm and owns slaves to help work the land in New Orleans, and begins the day Fort Sumter was attacked and ends, one year later, the day New Orleans falls to the Union.

The book is available online from Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble and Jones has signings planned locally throughout the months of February and March. The book is also available at Barnes and Noble at Main Street at Exton.

The first signing is on Sunday, Feb. 9 at 3 p.m. at Art Partners Studio in Coatesville. Another signing is planned for Saturday, March 8 at noon at the Dane Tilghman Gallery also in Coatesville.

Jones, a playwright who works at HDX in Exton as an engineer, spent five and 1/2 years researching the novel, which he first began as a play. Most of the time, he said, he spent checking and re-checking notes to insure that he was being historically accurate.

"When I was in school, I was taught that blacks in the Confederate South were either slaves or were trying to escape to the North. They were uneducated and had no rights," he said.

He said the information found in history books didn't give the full picture, because what he learned was that free blacks did live in the South. "They could read, they were educated, they had businesses and had an economic foothold in the Confederacy," he said.

When the Civil War started, he said about 40 percent of the Confederate South was black and between 50 to 7 percent or a quarter of a million of those blacks were free. "In many cases, they had five to 10 generations of freedom," said Jones. He said some also had slaves.

"We need to get this information out, so black kids growing up don't feel like they're victims and so white kids don't think all whites are oppressors," he said. "Blacks were more than just slaves, but we were never taught that. We were not given enough information so we could make our own decisions."

He said he is an one-person campaign to get the history books correct. "The kids are the leaders of tomorrow," said Jones. "If we continue to raise our children by telling them that one race is the victim and the other is the oppressor, then there are going to continue to be problems between the races understanding one another."
He said all most people know about the Confederate South is from three movies, "Birth of a Nation," "Gone with the Wind," and "Roots." And all three deal with blacks being victims, he said. "As a nation, that brings with it a lot of guilt," he added.

He said as a result of his research, he learned that blacks were not always victims and that he and his wife, Jodi, are raising their son, Elliot, 11, to think differently about blacks in the South. "Not every black was a slave," he said. "Some were free, educated, owned businesses and were part of the economy in the South."
However, he stressed that he was not saying that slavery was good. "It is a scar on America's past, but not every black was a slave in the Confederate South."
Asked why he chose to put this information in the form of a novel, he said, "Because all the research is out there, but it's dull and clinical."
He said that he does include a bibliography in the book for those that want to study the issue further.

So why independently publish the book? He said he tried when President Bush was first elected to sell the book to prospective publishers, but at the time the issue was too hot with controversy over Confederate flags being flown at state capitals. He said he sent 75 query letters and received all of them back within a few weeks with a negative response.

That is part of the reason why he chose to publish the book himself. However, he said the book is not about race, but about how the Civil War impacted a free black family of the Confederate South, specifically, in this case, the fictional St. Claire family of New Orleans.

In addition to the signings already mentioned, Jones has the following book signings scheduled:
n Wednesday, Feb. 12 at 7:30 p.m. at Barnes & Noble at Main Street at Exton
n Saturday, Feb. 16 at 2 p.m. at the Chester County Conference and Visitor's Bureau in Kennett Square
n Thursday, Feb. 27 at Hudson United Bank in West Chester.
There also may be two others later in March at the Chester County Book Store in Downingtown and West Chester, dates to be determined.

There's no credible evidence of as many as 100 black rebel soldiers.

You have been lied to. I will direct you to a single report by a Northern officer, Chief Inspector Lewis Steiner of the US Sanitary Commission. He was in Fredericksburg and observed Jackson's Army for hours as it marched through on it's way to Antietam in 1862. In his report he noted:

"Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

It's the neo-reb "big lie."

The "big lie", it seems, would be the neo-unionist's denial of black Confederates.

"Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

Oh, Lord, I've heard that quote from you people so often but I've never once heard one of you explain the last sentence of the paragraph: "The fact was patent, and rather interesting, when considered in conection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of Black soldiers being employed in the National Defense."

Let's consider that for a moment. Why would the thought of facing black soldiers in combat cause the rebel army to react in horror? If, as you say, black combat soldiers were the norm in the Confederate army then why should the idea of black Union combat soldiers make them react so strongly? More to the point, if black combat soldiers were the norm in the Confederate army then why were southern soldiers so loath to take black Union soldiers as prisoner? From Fort Pillow to Olustee to Poison Spring to the Battle of the Crater to Saltville and battles in between there is instance after instance of black Union soldiers being shot while trying to surrender or shot after surrendering. Why is that? If the southern soldier had no problem with black soldier standing next to him on the firing line then why would he treat black opponents so brutally?

The fact of the matter is that there weren't thousands of black combat soldiers. Oh there were blacks with the confederate army, but in supporting roles as teamsters and stevadores and servents and the like. The idea that a south, where every single state placed restrictions on black ownership of firearms, would welcome thousands of armed blacks in their army as combat soldiers is laughable.

And what are you doing when you post a quote from Frederick Douglass and present it as proof of the widespread use of black combat troops within southern ranks?

LOL - I see you still have no rebuttal for the words of Douglass. Evidently you do consider him a liar. I do not.

Surely you, a student of history, have some quotes from some of the confederate generals of the time that testify to the steadiness of their black combat soldiers?

If blacks had been organised into segregated black regiments, there would be much occassion for comments of that nature, but they were not. The Confederate units were mixed, and primarily white by far, and officer's comments are about their units, not their makeup. I have read references in some reports in the past, and will look them up for you. There are, of course, a multitude of other references to black Confederate soldiers, and I mean 'soldiers', not musicians and cooks and teamsters. Many of them come from Northern soldiers and newspapers, as well as official Northern reports. I guess you think them all liars, just as you do Frederick Douglass.

Oh, Lord, I've heard that quote from you people so often...

"you people"???

...but I've never once heard one of you explain the last sentence of the paragraph: "The fact was patent, and rather interesting, when considered in conection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of Black soldiers being employed in the National Defense."

What's to wonder about? Blacks being loyal to the South and fighting for it, whether directly as soldiers or in some other capacity, were a natural thing and welcomed by the Confederates. They fought for the South just as they fought for the Colonies against the British. The use of black troops by the North was the very opposite of that in their eyes. The blacks in question were overwhelmingly runaway slaves, that is, Southern blacks. They were seen as traitors. To the Confederate, they were the equivelent of tories during the American Revolution, with the added runaway slave issue thrown in to boot. The opposition was not merely one of race, which no doubt was a part, even Northerners objected heatedly to black soldiers. The treachery it represented to Confederates was the major component. Arthur Freemantle, a british officer, described a situation that happened after the battle of Manassas, in which a slave who had run off to the Northern side right before the battle was captured in it's aftermath. He described how two black servants with the Confederate army demanded, quite insistently, that he be shot or hung as a traitor. If those two slaves felt that way about a runaway intending to help the enemy with his labor (this was before the North would arm a black), how worse it would have been if he could have taken up arms. To a Confederate of any color, US Colored troops were seen as traitors from their own midst who had taken up arms against them, much worse than the Northerners who were 'merely' invading their States.

From Fort Pillow to Olustee to Poison Spring to the Battle of the Crater to Saltville and battles in between there is instance after instance of black Union soldiers being shot while trying to surrender or shot after surrendering. Why is that?

Shall we list the innumerable instances of Northern war crimes and ask the same question? BTW, some of your examples are not acknowledged instances of your position.

Once again you call Douglass a liar, and now you call Chief Inspector Steiner a liar. Everyone's a liar that disagrees with you, I guess. Especially if they were there and knew what they were talking about. A most wonderful defense for your position, one that is disproven by the record. Tennessee, for example, legally sanctioned the recruitment of free blacks into the ranks of regiments. The 14th Tennessee Infantry listed 65 "free men of color" on their Roll of Honor, one whom was killed in action carrying their colors in Pickett's Charge. The references to black Confederates serving in combat roles are numerous within Northern newspapers, letters of Union soldiers, reports of Union officers, etc.. That neo-unionist revisionists and anti-Southern hatemongers are so upset by something well evidenced in the historical record is strange. I suppose that after they eradicate Frederick Douglass and Horace Greely from the record, they will next eliminate the patriotic actions of American blacks, most slaves, during the American Revolution, because they would have "obviously" fought for the British and gained their freedom. Oh, I forgot to quote Greely, he, like Douglass, pointed out the black soldiers in the Confederate Army: "For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union." Another 'liar' that will now have to be expunged from history.

The idea that a south, where every single state placed restrictions on black ownership of firearms, would welcome thousands of armed blacks in their army as combat soldiers is laughable.

Not as laughable as how upset hatemongers and revisionists get whenever the subject comes up.

Once again you call Douglass a liar, and now you call Chief Inspector Steiner a liar. Everyone's a liar that disagrees with you, I guess.

I'm not calling anyone a liar, not even you although I think you are putting words in Dr, Steiner's mouth. I don't disagree that there there thousands of blacks along with the southern army in a support role. And Dr. Steiner's account bears this out. I'm disputing the southron fairy tale of tens of thousands of black combat soldiers marching side-by-side with their white bretheren against the Yankee foe. That is the part that is ridiculous, that is the part that is wrong. You would like us to believe that the same society that placed restrictions on any ownership by firearms by blacks would suddenly welcome them in the ranks. The same states which had laws, sometime Constitutitons, against free blacks living in their state would welcome armed blacks in their regiments. The society that went to tremendous lengths to segregate their institutions would integrate their army. That is the ridiculous part. And that same society which, according to you, owed so much to the efforts of free black confederate soldiers during the war would repay that loyalty by passing the Black Codes after the war that placed those loyal black veterans, some of whom must have been free for decades, to a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible. If you are correct, if there were thousands of black combat soldiers in the southern ranks, then you did have an odd way of showing your appreciation.

The 14th Tennessee Infantry listed 65 "free men of color" on their Roll of Honor, one whom was killed in action carrying their colors in Pickett's Charge.

The 14th Tennessee was in the Third Brigade of Heath's Division. They did not participate in Pickett's Charge. Be careful of what you believe.

"The fact (of_blacks_in_arms)_was patent, and rather, interesting when considered in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed tor the National defence....Their apologies for regimental bands were vile and excruciating. The only real music in their column to-day was from a bugle blown by a negro."

...Three of the buildings on the hospital grounds were taken possession of by the Confederates for the accommodation of their sick. These soon threw themselves on the beds, with their filthy clothing and boots. In a few hours a marked contrast could be noticed between the neatness of the wards containing the Union soldiers and those occupied by the rebels."....All of them show a lack of energy and spirit, a want of thrift and cleanliness, which are altogether paradoxical to our men. A constant fear of their officers is associated with their prompt obedience of orders. Many, while they expressed their contempt for "the Yankees," would lament the war and express a desire to throw down their arms and return to their homes, if they could only do this without molestation. Jackson's name was always mentioned with a species of veneration, and his orders were obeyed with a slavish obedience unsurpassed by that of Russian serfs.

The men generally looked sturdy when in ranks, yet a cachectic expression of countenance prevailed, which could not be accounted for entirely by the unwashed faces that were, from necessity or choice, the rule. Those who have fallen into our hands show worn-out constitutions, disordered digestions and a total lack of vital stamina. They do not bear pain with any fortitude, and their constitutions seem to have very little power of resistance to disease. The rate of mortality in the rebel sick and wounded is double or treble that found in the Hospitals containing our men."

More_Dr._Steiner:

"A clergyman tells me that he saw an aged crone come out of her house as certain rebels passed by trailing the American flag in the dust. She shook her long, skinny hands at the traitors and screamed at the top of her voice, "My curses be upon you and your officers for degrading your country's flag." Her expression and gesture as described to me were worthy of Meg Merilies.

The Confederates have been seizing horses from our farmers, tendering Confederate scrip in payments. They allege military necessity injustification of this seizure. Military necessity is a convenient cloak for any outrage whatever."

Federal_troops_return:

"Amid all this, there was exhibited no vindictive feeling towards the secession citizens of the town. No arrests were made of so-called Southern sympathizers. Many of these were disgusted with their friends of the Southern Army, and not at all displeased that they had left Frederick and had been followed by the strong arm of the United States Government."

Sunday, September 14th.—Major-General Banks' corps d'armee, commanded by Brigadier-General A. S. Williams passed through town this morning on its way to the front. The men were in the best possible spirits, all eager for the fray. They are fighting now for and among people who appreciate their labors, and who welcome them as brothers. Brigadier-General Gordon said that "the reception of the troops by the citizens of this place was equal to a victory in its effects upon the men of his command." The veteran troops were all in vigorous health, and the new levies made up of strong, athletic men, whose intelligent faces beamed with strong desire to press rapidly upon the retreating foe. We had never greater reason to be proud of our army."

Walt

The "big lie", it seems, would be the neo-unionist's denial of black Confederates.

There_is_no_credible_evidence_of_blacks_fighting_for_the_CSA.

"The Louisiana "Native Guards" were organized years before the Civil War. When the war came, they offered themselves to the Confederate leadership because it was the only government they had to offer themselves to in order to maintain and enhance their status as "free people of color." But the Confederacy turned down the offer.

When the United States took New Orleans, the_Native Guards offered themselves to the United States for the rest of the war, killing many Confederates.

When New Orleans was evacuated by the Confederate authorities in March 1862 they were ordered to report to Mjr. Gen. John Lewis, who commanded the state militia under the orders of Gov. Thomas O. Moore, but the Native Guards did not leave. The Creole in command, instead of following the Confederate troops out of the city when they evacuated it, allowed his command to be cut off, and then volunteered to Union Gen. Butler to serve in the Union.

On June 6, 1863, the four regiments of the Louisiana Guards were transferred into the Corps d'Afrique. On April 4, 1864, these regiments were designated the 73rd, 74th, 75th and 76th Regiments of Infantry, United States Colored Troops, respectively, and served in that capacity 'til the end of the Civil War. On May 27, 1863, the "free blacks" of the Louisiana Regiments were to distinguish themselves in the battle of Port Hudson against Confederate forces before the 54th Massachusetts Regiment would storm Fort Wagner and gain modern fame in the movie "Glory." An editorial in the New York Tribune of June 8,1863, eloquently declared: "That heap of six hundred corpses, lying there darkand grim and silent and within the Rebel works, is a better proclamation of freedom than even President Lincoln's. A race ready to die thus was never yet retained in bondage and never can be."

Walt

I'm disputing the southron fairy tale of tens of thousands of black combat soldiers marching side-by-side with their white bretheren against the Yankee foe. That is the part that is ridiculous, that is the part that is wrong.

Then you are calling Chief Inspector Steiner a liar, because his report specifically states that. Although 3,000 in that one particular instance with Jackson's Army. As to the "side by side" part, Steiner said they were "promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde." Without a doubt the majority of black Confederates throughout the South were support personnel, that is true, but it is also true that many thousands participated in combat roles. Black Confederate combat soldiers are a fact of history, whether it fits current PC-revisionism or not. Frederick Douglass did not lie.

You would like us to believe that the same society that placed restrictions on any ownership by firearms by blacks would suddenly welcome them in the ranks.

Absolutely. Slaves were often allowed the use of arms. At home, those responsible for the master's family especially were. It was part of their role. Slaves wielding arms in defense of their families was written about many times by invading Northern soldiers. BTW, you are definitely calling Chief Inspector Steiner a liar now, because he specifically mentions them being armed with muskets, pistols, etc., and you are also definitely calling Frederick Douglass a liar as well. Why do think Mr. Douglass "lied" about it? I think he told the truth. See, I didn't even mention Horace Greeley.

The same states which had laws, sometime Constitutitons, against free blacks living in their state would welcome armed blacks in their regiments. The society that went to tremendous lengths to segregate their institutions would integrate their army. That is the ridiculous part.

Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. Your description of Northern society is quite apt, and the Northern Army did not integrate it's Army. While it may be true that officially the Confederate government in Richmod did not sanction the use of blacks as soldiers, but did as cooks, musicians, and servants, what the individual States and unit commanders decided to allow was another matter. As I previously mentioned, Tennessee for one specifically allowed it by law within her units. Did any Northern states do the same? Blacks on the Confederate army payroll were paid the same as whites by law. Where blacks in the Northern Army paid the same as whites? This can go on and on.

And that same society which, according to you, owed so much to the efforts of free black confederate soldiers during the war would repay that loyalty by passing the Black Codes after the war that placed those loyal black veterans, some of whom must have been free for decades, to a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible.

Have you ever read the Northern Black codes? Pot and Kettle again. The Southern ones were more strict, as an over-reaction to the crimes committed during reconstruction. That is not a justification, it is an explanation of what led to the severity. Other than that, they were like the North, and guilty of race prejudice. This may shock you, but most Americans, North and South, had race prejudice back then. A person may have looked at a black and thought him inferior, but that does not mean he wouldn't fight next to him. Unless he was from up North, I guess. Most Southern whites had interacted with blacks all their lives, unlike Northern whites, which probably explains that.

The 14th Tennessee was in the Third Brigade of Heath's Division. They did not participate in Pickett's Charge. Be careful of what you believe.

ROFLMAO!!! I will certainly be careful of believing any history from you. The "3rd Brigade of Heth's Division" was ARCHER'S BRIGADE. Now you maintain that Archer's Brigade did not participate in the charge of Pickett, Pettigrew, and Trimble. There is no end to your revisionism. I suggest you throw out whatever book of crap told you Archer's Brigade did not participate in that attack. The 14th Tennessee left their colors planted on the rock wall at that part of the line. Check your history. Archer's Brigade, and the 14th Tennessee Infantry with it, did most certainly participate in "Pickett's" Charge.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.