Black Confederates: Finding Color in Gray Lines
- Paul Campbell
- Mar 19
- 14 min read
Updated: Mar 20
Since the end of what is commonly called the American Civil War, history of the war and its causes has become nearly impossible to accurately present with any sense of clarity. In Gray Matter, the narrowly-anticipated sequel to my first novel, Grayscale, I introduce a Confederate veteran who also happens to be a black woman. While those on the political right might loudly applaud the idea that the Confederacy had black supporters, and those on the political left might loudly applaud a female African-American character taking the place of a typically white, male role (except for the fact that this role is that of a Confederate veteran, and therefore must be racist), the real question we should be asking is: How plausible is this historically? The answer is not so simple, and I have decided to split the answer into two posts. In this post, we will investigate the role which African-Americans played in the Confederacy. In my next post, we will look into the role of women in the War Between the States.
Most historians will rightfully state that the South had no black regiments. The Union, on the other hand, had several black regiments known as the USCT, or United States Colored Troops. Does this mean that black men never fought for the South? Misinformation abounds about the war, possibly more today than ever before. The war still rages as armchair historians battle back and forth, fighting over motives like soldiers fighting over territory.
On one side, there is the loud and oft-repeated claim that the war was fought over slavery. The mainstream narrative promotes the claim that the South was fighting to preserve the institution of slavery and the North was battling to end it. Many falsely assume that all whites were slave-owners and all blacks were enslaved, despite evidence to the contrary. They argue that it would be absurd for a black slave to fight for this reason, and therefore any black men on the southern side must have been coerced into the war effort against their will. Many laymen will take this claim one step further and use the institution of slavery as evidence that the South represented hate and racism, and any who might dare sympathize must fall under the same category. Many assert that the idea of black men serving the Confederacy is a hoax, and that such never happened at all.
On the other side, alt-history researchers say that slavery was only a minor issue of the war, and that the primary cause was federal government overreach. Many will cite the fact that the Confederacy had thousands of black men working to support the armies, and make the claim that these men were acting as voluntary soldiers. They promote the Confederacy as a beacon of freedom, turning Dixieland into a utopia that was stamped out by the federal government and the horrors of the so-called 'Reconstruction.' Some—either mistakenly through shoddy research or intentionally—go so far as to use altered or mislabeled photographs as evidence of black Confederate soldiers, compounding the problem.
Who is right? Realistically, neither. While this blog is not intended to be a deep-dive into the North-South debate, it is critical to briefly establish a few facts. The debate over the War Between the States (or Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, or War against Southern Freedom, depending on who you ask) is still going strong after more than a hundred and fifty years, and one simple blog is simply not up to the task of unraveling it. Sorry to disappoint.
Gray, Blue, and Black
We must remember that history is written by the victors. History is one of the greatest spoils of war, and propaganda can become self-sustaining if repeated often enough. Many make the mistake of citing 'known facts' that are not facts at all, but are rather claims which have been repeated until they feel like common knowledge. We must keep this in mind while studying the history of any conflict. Those who write the history books will downplay the atrocities of the side they support and scrutinize the atrocities of the enemy, while downplaying the enemy's virtues and celebrating their own. Ignoring this fact will certainly lead to difficulty in discerning fact from opinion.
This has happened in every war since the beginning of time, and will continue until the end of time.
The idea widely held today that the Union troops were the 'good guys fighting for freedom' and the Confederate troops were the 'bad guys fighting for slavery' is erroneous. War is never so simple.
However, while keeping this in mind, we must be doubly careful not to blunder into the opposite direction. Sadly, many alt-historians, in an attempt to counteract the mainstream narrative, will downplay any unpleasant facts which might contradict their own alternative conclusions, and will quickly snatch at any plausible story as proven fact, without taking the time to investigate the accuracy of their claims. This pendulum swing only increases the skepticism of the mainstream in considering any alternative view, and the problem is repeated.
The unpleasant facts are these: War is not hell. To quote the fictional Hawkeye Pierce of M*A*S*H fame: “War is war, and hell is hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.” No innocent victims will face hell, while war is filled with them. There has been no war in human history where evil men and evil motives could not be found on both sides. Neither is there any war in history where good men fighting for good motives could not be found on both sides, nor any war in history where innocent victims could not be found on both sides. I challenge anyone to deny these indisputable facts.
So where does that leave us between the Blue and the Gray? The same place we've been for the last hundred and fifty years: right in the middle of a morally gray area, arguing until we're blue in the face. Each side justly pointing to the evils of the opposition, while unjustly downplaying the evils of their own side.
Morally Gray and Blue in the Face
There is no question that the institution of slavery is morally wrong, or that it stands in opposition to the ideas of freedom outlined in both the Bill of Rights and the Bible. However, this does not mean that every slave was treated poorly, nor that every black American was a slave. However, the African slave trade ensured that most slaves in America were indeed black, and that most black men in America were slaves. Slavery was common in Africa, and powerful African kings and tribal leaders learned quickly that they could get rid of rival tribes by selling captured enemies as slaves and make themselves a good profit in the bargain. Cruel as it was, it benefited those in power. Many slaves—those that survived the horrors of the slave ships—found a better life in the United States than they had lived in Africa. Some of them rose through the societal ranks to the point that they became wealthy slave owners themselves. Yet, the fact remains that many others did not.
Slavery was not simply a problem for the South. Slavery still existed in the northern states. Many like to cite the Emancipation Proclamation as the end of slavery, but this is simply not the case. The Emancipation Proclamation only offered freedom to slaves in the Confederate States, which Lincoln had no legal ability to free, as these states had already seceded by the time the proclamation was given. The Confederacy was, at that time, a sovereign nation. Lincoln's proclamation offered no freedom for slaves in the north, and neither did it offer freedom for any slaves in southern areas which had come back under Union control. James AW Rembert sums the Emancipation up nicely:
"Issued on September 22, 1862, and taking effect on January 1, 1863, the proclamation declared free only those slaves held in parts of the South that were not occupied by Union troops. Unashamedly, President Lincoln wrote in the middle of the proclamation that his document was “a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion,” not at all an idealistic measure to free all slaves in America, South and North. Lawyer that he was, Lincoln in the “Emancipation Proclamation” listed all those states and parts of states that were currently in rebellion against the United States, the word rebellion an argument for a counterargument. Slaves in 13 parishes (counties) of Louisiana were not freed by Lincoln because Union forces occupied those counties, and the same is true of seven counties and two cities in Virginia. These counties contained 300,000 un-emancipated slaves who continued in slavery after the proclamation went into effect. Neither did the proclamation cover half a million slaves in the slave-holding border states, such as Maryland and Delaware, which were Union states. Colonel Shaw, in the movie “Glory” discusses this fact with the surgeon. The slaves in question were not freed until almost 2 years later, 7 months after the war ended, by the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, adopted on December 6, 1865." - taken from his blog, link at the bottom.
Sadly, the Emancipation Proclamation blatantly neglected to offer freedom to the actual slaves it had the power to free. It is no wonder that such blatant hypocrisy caused outrage within the southern states. While freedom did eventually come to slaves after the war, it was a complex process that caused economic difficulties for many, and was opposed by slave owners on both sides. Lincoln consistently held that the purpose of the war was to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. As pressures of war increased, escaped slaves from the southern states were enlisted into the army, and the Emancipation Proclamation gave the Union the appearance of moral high-ground—despite the fact that the end of slavery had already begun in both the northern and southern states, and would officially end for neither until 7 months after the war. Freedom was given to former slaves who fought for the Union, but it was considered a reward, not an intrinsic right.
Maybe those truths weren't so self-evident after all.
It is true that the Confederate Constitution protected the institution of slavery. You may have seen this line quoted before as proof of the Confederacy's motives for the war. I present the quote here from Article IV, section 3:
“...the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government;”
However, this does not mean that slavery was the primary reason for the war, nor that it was intended to remain. A quote you likely have not heard before from Article I, section 9(I) is as follows:
“The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.”
While the Confederate Constitution did protect the ability to own slaves, they effectively outlawed the slave trade. No new slaves could be brought in from outside the CSA. Without new slaves being brought in, this labor force would have slowly been replaced with hired help, as slaves became more rare and therefore more costly than they already were. With slaves costing as much as $1,500 and sometimes even more (approximately $57,000 today), it was a rare man, indeed, who would throw away such an investment through maltreatment, though it could and did happen upon occasion. Slavery would have become practically non-existent within a generation or two, as cheap hired laborers replaced slaves. Although this plan would have failed to free any current slaves, it would have effectively strangled slavery to death.
This is the same basic method which many northern states were already using to great effect, smothering the slave trade slowly. In 1800, there were 37,000 black slaves in New York and New Jersey. Just thirty years later, there were less than a tenth of that number. While freeing all slaves immediately would have been the ideal, it was highly impracticable economically. The above prohibition of the Confederate government was a sensible solution to the slave problem that avoided the disastrous repercussions which Reconstruction caused after the war.
In comparison, while neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor the Confederate Constitution freed any current slaves within its borders, at least the Confederate Constitution outlined an eventual end to slavery within its own borders, and provided a reasonable method to bring such an end about, while the Emancipation Proclamation did not. While the actual reasons for the war are several, we can conclude that slavery was not and could not be the primary reason for the war, and the claim that black Confederates must have been fighting to preserve slavery is historically false.
What about the Army?
The Union had several units of black men who fought during the war as early as September of 1862. These units were always led by white officers, and advancement within the ranks was limited for any black soldiers in these units. Black men were formed into special units specifically for them, and were not allowed to enlist or transfer into white units. While abolition was used as a motive to enlist black men into the war effort, racism and segregation was another matter entirely. Most of these black units were originally relegated to supporting roles rather than combat, but as the struggle continued and desperation increased, they were eventually sent into combat as well, although for a fraction of the pay of regular soldiers.
It was not until the very end of the war that the South agreed to allow black men to form official regiments. Before March 13th, 1865, it was illegal for black men to enlist in the Confederate army. Just like in the North, black men formed the majority of the supporting roles for the war, serving as cooks, laborers, aides, and performing other non-combat duties. Some of these were paid positions, but the majority were slaves belonging to officers, soldiers, or to the parents of a soldier, sent along to care for their son. Others were freemen pressed into service. These men were soldiers in every role except combat. They worked, slept, and ate with soldiers. Many were killed or wounded in battle. Their sacrifices should be recognized and honored alongside the armed soldiers they supported, and in southern organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans, they are given the same recognition as any other soldier who served. However, they were not legally considered soldiers at the time. They were servants, serving in secondary roles, and were not issued uniforms, pay, or arms.
The South was far from unified, however, on the idea of preventing black men from service. General Patrick Cleburne circulated a proposal to emancipate and enlist black men as confederate soldiers, and gained fifteen other signatures among his peers. This proposal was rejected, however, and the Davis administration also ordered Cleburne to cease any further discussion of the topic. It was only at the very end of the war, after Cleburne's death, that the Southern government was finally desperate enough to allow enslaved men to be mustered and equipped.
One might be quick to assume that racism was the reason behind this reluctance to have black men serve in the army, and though there were certainly those who ascribed to Darwin's theories regarding blacks as an inferior subspecies, closer to the ape, we should never assume that such was always the case. Many southerners believed that forcing slaves into combat was morally wrong. While supporting roles and manual labor were one thing, the idea of forcing a man to fight through coercion was repulsive. They believed the war was for freedom, and it was for free men to fight. Consider this quote of General Robert Toombs, one of the most ardent secessionists of the time and eventually the Confederacy's first Secretary of State:
“In my opinion, the worst calamity that could befall us would be to gain our independence by the valor of our slaves, instead of our own. If we are conquered by the fortunes of war, we may save our honor and leave the cause to our descendants, who may be wiser and braver than we and may avail themselves of the accidents of human affairs, and yet win what we are ignominiously throwing away. The day that the army of Virginia allows a negro regiment to enter their lines as soldiers they will be degraded, ruined and disgraced.”
This quote shows that, at least for Toombs, the reluctance to allow slaves to enlist had nothing to do with the color of their skin, and everything to do with the idea of buying a man's valor with money. Allowing slaves to fight was tantamount to cowardice, and forcing slave owners to release their slaves as a condition for service was, ironically, considered an assault on their freedom. It was not, then, the idea of fighting alongside black men that repulsed most southerners, but the idea of having someone else fight your battles in your stead.
Free Men
Since slavery was by far the primary means of Africans reaching America, it is unsurprising that most black men and women in America at the time were slaves, but there was no restriction on the buying and selling of slaves pursuant to race. Free black men were able to purchase and own slaves just as much as white men, and some did, such as Antoine Dubuclet in Louisiana or William Ellison Jr. in South Carolina, who was himself a former slave. Both of these, among others, owned large numbers of slaves and would have been considered in the top one percent of wealthy Americans.
Free black men did exist in the south, and were some of the wealthiest men of their time, blurring even further the modern idea that all blacks were slaves and all whites were slave owners. Some of the black men who formed the First Louisiana Native Guard were slave owners. The First Louisiana Native Guard was accepted into the Confederate army, but as it was entirely made up of black men, was not allowed to serve in battle due to the laws against Negro soldiers. Later on, after New Orleans was captured by the Union in 1862, many of the same men offered to fight for the Union instead. They were initially refused, but were eventually accepted.
This did not mean that black men never fought for the Confederacy. While it was rare, there are a few official reports of black Confederates. In the “Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,” which is a compilation of military records of some fifty thousand pages, all told, there are a total of seven Union eyewitness reports of black Confederates. Three of these reports mention black men shooting at Union soldiers, one report mentions capturing a handful of armed black men along with several white soldiers, and the other three reports mention seeing unarmed black laborers. Given the known prevalence of black laborers working alongside Confederate lines compared to only three eyewitness reports of the same, we can be sure that black soldiers did exist. While black men were not allowed to enlist in official armies, it is extremely likely that smaller militia units would have ignored these restrictions with trusted freemen or loyal slaves who wished to serve beside their master.
While mainstream historians will insist that all these black men were either laborers or body-servants, some of these body-servants, in their own words, refer to themselves as bodyguards. Historians can label them however they want, but these men clearly identify themselves as bodyguards, and were honored as such by their companions. Whether armed or not, it is absurd to think that a Confederate commander would place men in such a role whom he did not trust implicitly to protect and defend his life.
Still Blurry
While all historians agree that black men did assist the Confederacy and that black men even took up arms for the Confederacy on various occasions, their motivations are more difficult to pin down, and were likely varied and personal. One side will say that the only reason blacks aided the Confederacy was through coercion, or as a way to choose where they might serve rather than allow themselves pressed into service against their will at a later date. The other side will laud these men and women as willingly helping the Confederacy of their own free will, either through loyalty to their masters and friends, or as free men fighting for a cause they believed in. Likely, all of these scenarios happened at one time or another, but without speaking to these men and women personally, it is impossible to know what truly motivated them, and equally impossible to assume their motives were all the same.
Did black Confederates exist? Absolutely. Did the black men and women who aided in the war against the Union believe in what they were fighting for? Certainly not all of them, but some certainly did, and many of these men and women attended veterans reunions and were readily accepted and recognized as equals among their white brethren—and rightly so. The vast majority of slave owners owned only three to five slaves—not hundreds—and working in such close connection would have, in most cases, built friendships and loyalties that endured long after the war. These noble bonds of loyalty and kinship are worthy of recognition, and it is these bonds that are highlighted in the character of Chloe Washington, in Gray Matter.
These blogs are designed to give you a brief look at the true history which plays a part in my novels, The Callahan Chronicles.
For more information on Black Confederates or the Callahan Chronicles, check out these links:
The Callahan Chronicles - by Paul Campbell
Gray Matter - buy on Amazon
The Confederate Constitution - read it for yourself
Prelude to War - an excellent article by James AW Rembert about the events leading to the bombardment of Fort Sumter
Black Confederates: Truth and Legend - by Sam Smith
Black Slave Owners - Iron Bark Resources
Black Confederates - by Jaime Martinez, Encyclopedia Virginia
Arming the Enslaved - by Nathan Thomas Hall
Black Men describe their roles in the war - A short Youtube video. (if you can interpret everything these men are saying, please let me know. The Deep South accent is no joke.)
Comments