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.
persons "forced to unload munitions or build bridges" were NOT soldiers, sailors or marines, but servants, whether slaves or free.
slaves could NOT be members of the forces as they were NOT free to take the oath of enlistment, though SOME did take up arms for the southland.
the veterans who joined the UCV were "free persons of colour" who were members of combat,combat support or combat service support units.
ONLY VETERANS of the CSA's military forces were UCV members. when the UCV formed, ALL CSA VETERANS were welcomed, regardless of color.
FRee dixie,sw