What the Newspapers Said: The Black Confederate “Myth” Examined

Kirk's Raider's said:

Could we even fill an average size municipal transit bus with all the known black Confederate soldiers? Could we even fill up a standard Greyhound bus with every single black non combatant who fired even one shot in anger against the blue bellies?
Kirk's Raider's

Click to expand...

This thread and the article seems to be confused on if the issue is the existence of the BCs or if the issue is the existence of a 'myth' evidenced by random Northern newspaper articles. My position is that if the myth is only evidenced by random newspaper articles, then it does not exist as a myth.

Andersonh1 said:

It seems to me that you're missing the whole point of this particular article, which is the well-founded suggestion that a belief in black men willing to take up arms for the Confederate States goes back to the war itself and is not a modern invention. Playing word games, i.e. "they didn't use the exact words "black Confederate"" does not change the meaning of the stories. Plenty of accounts existed, and whether they were true or false, the idea is still appearing in print long before the modern day.

Click to expand...

I have yet another problem. "a belief in black men willing to take up arms for the Confederate States goes back to the war itself". How do we know the newspaper publishers believed what they published. An editor just publishing a list of news items, does not necessarily believe those items. Accounts may be published for political reasons. Other than the articles, is there any evidence of belief?

jgoodguy said:

I have yet another problem. "a belief in black men willing to take up arms for the Confederate States goes back to the war itself". How do we know the newspaper publishers believed what they published. An editor just publishing a list of news items, does not necessarily believe those items. Accounts may be published for political reasons. Other than the articles, is there any evidence of belief?

Click to expand...

don't forget stuff that's there just to fill the sheet. that are obviously short articles not much bigger than an ad - in fact they were often used for space reserved to ads when those ads weren't sold. they had a tendency to be hilarious and made up (women with two heads, talking horses called ed, black confederate brigates).

also in the 19th century papers printed a lot more fake news than we do today. the reason why we got better is simply because it has become a lot easier for paying customers to find us out if we serve bullshit (i guess it's okay to use that word when potus does it ).

that got nothing to do with spin, partizanship or outright probaganda, obviously. in the western world the english speaking papers and tv stations are the worst culprits in that respect. rachel maddow wouldn't make it a week and tucker carlson would probably be fired life on air in france or germany. boris johnson has been fired twice for lying by british papers but still he becomes pm - see the difference?

unless i did a piece about papers during the civil war i wouldn't dare to quote anything from those papers without either a hefty disclaimer or an independent corroboration. basicly the bigger the sold circulation the more trustworthy they are as there is a much higher chance someone finds out they print nonsense.

it's a bit like with wikipedia - those articles are a start and they definately are good to find ankles of research (names etc) but they aren't proving anything on their own.

having said that, to me a black confederate is anyone who on their own free will volunteers any form of service to further the confederate cause - paid or not, free or not.

a slave who nurses back his wounded master is in my opinion not among those because he most likely does it from a personal connection with said master (might as well be fear for relatives if he let him die).

to get a number i accept a dunkelziffer (lit: dark number, like dark matter you can't prove it (yet)) of 90% for proven cases but i won't drop the requirement for their own free will.

jgoodguy said:

It seems to me that you are unable to understand that a 'Black Confederate' is a modern invention. It is an armed black man, indistinguishable from a slave, armed, uniformed, fed and trained by the national Confederate States of America, enrolled by a CSA recruiter in a recognized CSA unit with a unit designation existing under the CSA Army Regulations. The 19th-century belief you refer to may or may not be related to the modern 'Black Confederate'.

Click to expand...

Not if one applies some reading comprehension. I don't intend any insult here, but come on... name one element of the modern "myth" that is not found in wartime newspapers. It's all there. About the only thing we might regularly see (and I'd like some links to examples) is exaggerated numbers in the tens of thousands, which I likely would not agree with, because I don't see the evidence for it. "Thousands" is certainly possible, and considering we have four years and hundreds of thousands who served at one point in the CS army, is not unreasonable.

jgoodguy said:

How do we know the newspaper publishers believed what they published.

Click to expand...

I thought the opinions of past generations didn't matter to you.

How do we know they didn't believe what they were publishing?

rittmeister said:

having said that, to me a black confederate is anyone who on their own free will volunteers any form of service to further the confederate cause - paid or not, free or not.

Click to expand...

Where white Confederates only members of the military, or were there Confederate civilians?

Is a Confederate someone who adheres to a set of beliefs, or someone who lived in the geographic limits of the Confederate states? Why or why not?

How many white men served in the Confederate military against their will? Should we count them as Confederates?

Andersonh1 said:

Where white Confederates only members of the military, or were there Confederate civilians?

Is a Confederate someone who adheres to a set of beliefs, or someone who lived in the geographic limits of the Confederate states? Why or why not?

How many white men served in the Confederate military against their will? Should we count them as Confederates?

Click to expand...

• they were - i'd say who ever claims them needs to prove white unionists
• beliefs it is - if it were the other way round there would not one foreighner be living in the us
• of course they are - the problem is again slavery. if you are some sort of subhuman (i deliberately used that word) ...

i did not say that black confederates need to be soldiers - i said their own free will

jgoodguy said:

It seems to me that you are unable to understand that a 'Black Confederate' is a modern invention.

Click to expand...

So? USCT are called "black troops," but how often were they called that in the 1860s?

It is an armed black man, indistinguishable from a slave, armed, uniformed, fed and trained by the national Confederate States of America, enrolled by a CSA recruiter in a recognized CSA unit with a unit designation existing under the CSA Army Regulations. The 19th-century belief you refer to may or may not be related to the modern 'Black Confederate'.

Click to expand...

Anyone enlisted is a soldier. Whatever their duties- playing a drum, cooking, digging ditches, washing pots and pans. Whatever.
There is no enlisted non-soldier category in Confederate regulations or laws.

jgoodguy said:

This thread and the article seems to be confused on if the issue is the existence of the BCs or if the issue is the existence of a 'myth' evidenced by random Northern newspaper articles.

Click to expand...

I find the article quite clear. And it's not just northern newspapers, but plenty of southern newspapers as well.

My position is that if the myth is only evidenced by random newspaper articles, then it does not exist as a myth.

Click to expand...

Again, it's not just northern newspapers, and in fact the article includes no "combat sightings" at all.

Stories originating in southern papers: 16
Stories originating in northern papers: 6
Southern papers citing/reprinting northern reports: 0
Northern papers citing/reprinting southern reports: 8

nt

Tom said:

So? USCT are called "black troops," but how often were they called that in the 1860s?
I am discussing 'Black Confederates'. If you wish to discuss the USCT start a new thread and I will participate.

Click to expand...

Anyone enlisted is a soldier. Whatever their duties- playing a drum, cooking, digging ditches, washing pots and pans. Whatever.
There is no enlisted non-soldier category in Confederate regulations or laws.[/QUOTE]

Interestingly enough, cooks were an enlisted non-soldier category under CSA law.
War of the Rebellion: Serial 127 Page 1079 CONFEDERATE AUTHORITIES.
link

jgoodguy said:

Interestingly enough, cooks were an enlisted non-soldier category under CSA law.

War of the Rebellion: Serial 127 Page 1079 CONFEDERATE AUTHORITIES.

Approved April 21, 1862.
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That hereafter is shall be [the] duty of the captain or commanding officer of his company to enlist four cooks for the use of his company...
Be it further enacted, That the cooks so directed to be enlisted, may be white or black, free or slave persons: Provided, however, That no slave shall be so enlisted, without the written consent of his owner. And such cooks shall be enlisted as such only, and put on the muster-roll....​

Click to expand...

How do you interpret this law as meaning a cook is a non-soldier (what part indicates that to you)?

Where do CSA regulations say a cook (even those "enlisted as such only" or any other enlisted man) is a non-soldier?

Tom said:

How do you interpret this law as meaning a cook is a non-soldier (what part indicates that to you)? Where do CSA regulations say a cook (or any other enlisted man) is a non-soldier?

Click to expand...

The law says "And such cooks shall be enlisted as such only. . ." meaning they can only be cooks, not infantrymen or artillerymen or cavalrymen.

Jim Klag said:

The law says "And such cooks shall be enlisted as such only. . ." meaning they can only be cooks, not infantrymen or artillerymen or cavalrymen.

Click to expand...

So how is a cook "enlisted as such only" not a soldier?

Where is the Confederate definition (from a law or regulation) of soldier?

jgoodguy said:

From Abbeville
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/...ers-said-the-black-confederate-myth-examined/

My first question will be OK show me the newspaper articles with the term 'Black Confederate' otherwise we are in yet another definition/interruption mire.

Click to expand...

Just to make sure all are aware, I wrote this article and submitted it to Abbeville, and they agreed to publish it on their blog. So I'm appreciative to all who have taken the time to pick it apart, because it's helpful for me to see angles that might not occur to me. I'm never going to cover all the angles or satisfy all critics, but then I didn't expect to. There's been varying reaction from different sources, both positive and negative, some from surprising individuals. At any rate, I'm pleased to have some of my research and thoughts published and out there as a part of the conversation.

Tom said:

So how is a cook "enlisted as such only" not a soldier?

Where is the Confederate definition (from a law or regulation) of soldier?

Click to expand...

I believe the hair-splitting is getting ridiculous. Call them soldiers if it makes you feel better. The CSA government called the cooks, and cooks only. In the Army, whether you are a typist or a mechanic or a truck driver, your primary MOS is infantryman. In the rebel army, the cooks were only allowed to be cooks.

Jim Klag said:

I believe the hair-splitting is getting ridiculous. Call them soldiers if it makes you feel better. The CSA government called the cooks, and cooks only. In the Army, whether you are a typist or a mechanic or a truck driver, your primary MOS is infantryman. In the rebel army, the cooks were only allowed to be cooks.

Click to expand...

how about the union army - honest question

rittmeister said:

how about the union army - honest question

Click to expand...

Ask all the rear echelon troops Grant dragooned into the infantry during the Overland Campaign to make up for battle casualties. Teamsters, cooks, pioneers (engineers) . . etc. were all handed rifles and put on the firing line. He even dipped into the heavy artillery troops in the forts around Washington - albeit they were sort of soldiers already. Grant's order created a mini crisis in his wagon trains and ambulance corps, making it necessary to find ambulance and wagon drivers in a hurry.

i know what pioniere are - best are the ösis: genie-truppen

rittmeister said:

i know what pioniere are - best are the ösis: genie-truppen

Click to expand...

I knew you knew - but not everybody does.