[4CJ]

And since those associated with the individual regiments were servants and teamsters and laborers it would make sense. The idea that more than a handful were combat soldiers is not supported by the evidence.

Ya think? Pray tell Commander, especially without offending millions who have served - including 7 of my neighbors overseas as we write, why non-combatants are any less of a soldier that those on the front line? In many cases the rolls had soldier crossed out, and cook or teamster substsituted. In numerous instances, it's documented that blacks joined in the fighting. There are numerous accounts of black sharpshooters defending their positions, and black artillery, and blacks fighting in the heat of battle.

Have you ever bothered to read Black Confederates (AKA Forgotten Confederates), Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War, Black Southerners in Gray or any other book on the subject? Why must yankees denigrate the men - free or slave - that fought for the Confedercy?

[x]

Many freed slaves travelled with Union army units and performed services for them. Some worked as scouts and risked their lives. Yet most weren't mustered into the army or considered soldiers or veterans. One can draw something of a parallel between these unofficial auxillaries and those who travelled with the Confederate army as servants, cooks, drivers, loaders, or construction workers. But it is worth noting that the Union armies also had Black fighting units. The Confederate army didn't. Nor is there valid evidence that there were much more than a score of "Black Confederate" combat soldiers. There is certainly no evidence of Black artillery units.

It's also to be noted that those who followed the Union army were free to do so or not. Many of those who travelled with the Confederate Army were slaves and had little say in the matter. Many were simply ordered to perform work for the Confederacy. Until we find out how many were free and how many were slaves the discussion is somewhat academic. To be sure, some could have run off and didn't, but this can't be taken as a "vote" of political support for the Confederacy. Slavery was still enforced, and had been enforced for centuries. And the opposing "votes" of those who did run off as soon as it was practically possible have to be taken into account.

Some Blacks may have remained with the Confederate forces because of personal loyalties, and others because they liked being on the road, but it looks perverse to take the presence of enslaved workers among the rebel armies as a vote for a slaveholders' rebellion. Or as an indication of the "colorblindess" of the Confederacy: when you need every male citizen on the front (except large slaveholders who were exempt) and you have a large population of unpaid laborers in bondage, what point is there in taking soldiers off the frontlines to perform support functions?

Slavery produces dependency. Just looking at dependent slaves who have adapted to slavery only gives part of the story. Those who did want freedom are another important part of the story, as are the means by which the slave system broke the wills of the enslaved population. Praising the loyalty of slaves to their masters and slamming welfare, income taxes, tariffs and other forms of government imposition on the citizenry looks inconsistent. If you love liberty, why not celebrate those who were willing to fight for it, not those who meekly followed their masters?

The national organization of the GAR never excluded any veterans on the basis of race. In large cities Blacks were generally excluded from White chapters and expected to form their own. This was in accordance with conditions during the war and afterwords, but we can and should condemn it now. In small towns and sparsely settled regions Black veterans were included in White chapters of the GAR.

I suppose "tokenism" describes the situation: small numbers of Blacks were allowed in local chapters of White organizations. Where numbers became a "problem" -- where the number of Blacks was larger -- they were expected to form their own posts.

"Tokenism" is also a pretty good word to describe the presence of Blacks in UCV chapters. A respected or well-liked personal servant, cook or driver, might be allowed into a local chapter without allowing in many more Blacks. Large numbers of Blacks who had been forced to unload munitions or build bridges would not have been welcomed at UCV meetings. Discussion on the subject should probably wait until we have more knowledge about just how many Blacks were in the UCV, or were given pensions by state governments.