Free Blacks taken in Pennsylvania

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
GwilymT said:
I wouldn’t say no one... you haven’t heard my grandfather go off about the roots of the Anglican Church!!!
I can get weepy about Anne of the Thousand Days although Lady Gray sends me into a dark depression. Now dang it, I have to go the store and stock up on antidepressant chocolate.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
Drew said:
We can examine the Pittsburgh article on slave-taking at Gettysburg, line by line. You may be assured it is balderdash.
It may just be infected by modernity.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
Post your evidence if you got it, please.
 

byron ed

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
108
Reaction score
70
It's not like others, Southern academics even, have not chased this topic down before us. Here's one take on it; one long excerpt from “Virginia’s Civil War” (2005 edited by Wallenstein and Brown, University of Virginia Press):

"[David G. Smith in his chapter “The Capture of African Americans during the Gettysburg Campaign”:]'The 1863 slave raids then were not just the case of renegade soldiers or private individuals independently capturing African Americans. Senior leaders such as Longstreet, Pickett, and Rodes were involved, and evidence also clearly implicates junior officers and senior non-commissioned officers.'

Smith Presees the seizure of black Pennsylvanians as part of broader foraging activities of the rebels during their 1863 invasion, carrying off anything that might be potentially valuable to their army and the Confederacy more generally. But he also believes that blacks not only were seized as a military asset, but also in revenge for the depredations of federal forces south of the Potomac River. Smith writes:

'The Pennsylvania slave raids were not an aberration, but an extension of Confederate warfare in the bitterly contested Virginia-Maryland-Pennsylvania theater. They were just a part of the efforts of a resolute army that was retaliating against a determined foe, repudiating the Emancipation Proclamation, capturing a labor force, and fighting to preserve a way of life based on mastery over African Americans.'

While there is no doubt much truth to David G. Smith’s assessment, it does not capture the shock and outrage of white Pennsylvanians when they saw their black neighbors carried away by the rebels. James M. Paradis has collected a number of heart-rendering accounts of Confederates capturing and sending south African Americans, some of whom had been born free, into slavery. The following is taken from his book, African Americans and the Gettysburg Campaign (2013), pp. 31-33. Paradis writes:

'Terror spread through the black communities in southern Pennsylvania when they heard of the approaching Confederate army. Whether freeborn or formerly enslaved, African Americans had much to fear.'

Jacob Hoke described the actions of the invading army around Chambersburg:

'One of the more revolting features of this day was the scouring of the fields about the town and searching of houses in portions of the place for negroes. The poor creatures–those of the who had not fled upon the approach of the foe–sought concealment in the growing wheat fields around the town. Into these the cavalrymen rode in search of their prey, and many were caught–some after a desperate chase and being fired at. In two cases, through the intercession of a friend who had influence with [Confederate General] Jenkins, I succeeded in effecting the release of the captured persons.'

Many other witnesses recorded this practice. The Reverend Dr. Philip Schaff observed, 'The town was occupied by an independent guerrilla band of cavalry, who steal horses, cattle, sheep, store-goods, Negroes, and whatever else they can make use of without ceremony and in evident violations of Lee’s proclamation read yesterday.' He continued,

'On Friday this guerilla band came to town on a regular slave-hunt, which presented the worst spectacle I ever saw in this war. They proclaimed, first, that they would burn down every house which harbored a fugitive slave, and did not deliver him up within twenty minutes. And then commenced the search upon all the houses which suspicion rested. It was a rainy afternoon. They succeeded in capturing several contrabands, among them a women with two children. A most pitiful sight, sufficient to settle the slavery question for every humane mind.'

The next day, June 27, Schaff reported that rebel troops drove:

'twenty one negroes through the town and towards Greencastle or Hagerstown. It was a sight as sad and as mournful as the slave-hunt yesterday. They claimed all these Negroes were Virginia slaves, but I was positively assured that two or three were born and raised in this neighborhood. One, Sam Brooks, split many a cord of wood for me. There were among them women and small children, sitting with sad countenances on Store-boxes. I asked one of the riders guarding the wagons, 'Do you not feel bad and mean in such an occupation?' He boldly replied that “he felt very comfortable. Comfortable. They were only reclaiming their property which we had stolen and harbored.'

Rachel Cormany watched the Confederates:

'hunting up the contrabands & driving them off by droves. O! How it grated on our hearts to have to sit quietly & look at such brutal deeds–I saw no men among the contrabands–all women & children. Some of the colored people who were raised here were taken along–I sat on the front step as they were driven by just like we would drive cattle. Some laughed & seemed not to care–but nearly all hung their heads. One woman was pleading wonderfully with the driver for her children–but all the sympathy she received from him was a rough 'March along'–at which she would quicken her pace again. It is a query what they wanted with those little babies–whole families were taken. Of course when the mother was taken she would take her children.'

The Reverend Thomas Creigh recorded in his diary for Friday, June 26, 'A terrible day. The guerillas passing and repassing, one of the saddest sights, several of our colored persons with them, to be sold into slavery, John Philkill and Findlay Cuff. The Rebels announced that they intended 'to search all houses for contrabands and fire arms and that wherever they discovered either they will set fire to the house in which they may be found.' The next day he reported the soldiers left, 'taking with them about a dozen colored persons, mostly contrabands, women and children.'

The raiders carried many of the “contraband” away in wagons. 'Some of the men were bound with ropes, and the children were mounted in front or behind the rebels on their horses.' Another citizen observed, 'They took all they could find, even little children, whom they had to carry on horseback before them.' William Heyser recorded in his diary on June 18, 'The Rebels have left Chambersburg taking with them about 250 colored people again into bondage."
 
Last edited:

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
782
The term 'kidnapping' is not historically accurate. So far the only thing offered in support of the term 'kidnapping' is passionate rhetoric.
Let's have say black soldiers drag you and or your family members into slavery and get back to us on what " kidnapping" means.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
764
The term 'kidnapping' is not historically accurate. So far the only thing offered in support of the term 'kidnapping' is passionate rhetoric.
I'm sorry, JGG, but if you invade my state, enter my home and take me by force against my will and without due process, that is the literal definition of kidnapping.

kidnapping
/ˈkidnapiNG/

noun
  1. the action of abducting someone and holding them captive.
    "the recent kidnapping of a Dutch industrialist"
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
I'm sorry, JGG, but if you invade my state, enter my home and take me by force against my will and without due process, that is the literal definition of kidnapping.

kidnapping
/ˈkidnapiNG/

noun
  1. the action of abducting someone and holding them captive.
    "the recent kidnapping of a Dutch industrialist"
I suppose you can without evidence assign any label to anything. The murder of Lee's innocent youth at Gettysburg by the minions of that troll Meade, for example.

In any case, that is addressed in my other thread. Legally the blacks were taken into custody by the Army of Nothern Virginia, an organized military organization operating under the Laws of the CSA, under a state of military law. They were taken back to VA for due process. Under your definition, Prisoners of War are kidnapped.
 

O' Be Joyful

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,525
Reaction score
1,379
Legally the blacks were taken into custody by the Army of Nothern Virginia, an organized military organization operating under the Laws of the CSA
As I recall, the CSA was not a "legal" gov't but one in revolution, and thus not legal until it succeeds in it's so-called secession from the Union. and is then recognized as an independent entity.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
As I recall, the CSA was not a "legal" gov't but one in revolution, and thus not legal until it succeeds in it's so-called secession from the Union. and is then recognized as an independent entity.
It was recognized as a belligerent whose laws were in force where it had the capability to enforce them in this case military law. You can say a bubble of CSA law followed the ANV where ever it went.

The CSA army operated under military law which allowed individuals to be taken into custody until their status can be determined. It is military law that is operative rather than civilian law. Rhetorically it may be kidnapping for effect, but it is not historically accurate. Remember under military law at this time, the United States Army was taking blacks into custody to free them. The Confederacy was vocally rhetorical about that and some folks snicker at that rhetoric.

I offer the following into evidence.
From thread
Evaluation of evidence re [url=https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/the-plight-of-african-americans-in-the-path-of-the-army-of-northern-virginia-in-the-gettysburg-campaign/]The taking of blacks by the ANV during the Pennsylvania campaign[/url] post #125

jgoodguy said:
The taking of African Americans by the ANV was a human tragedy. War is a secession of human tragedies.
The following is unquoted for readability

Assume a government agent has the power of arrest. Can that agent be called a kidnapper in the performance of his duties? This is the crux of the kidnapping issue.

Confederate General Order 25. March 6, 1863.
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That every person connected
with the army or navy of the Confederate States, arresting or coming into
possession of any slave, by capture from the enemy, or otherwise than by lawful
authority, shall immediately report the same to the commanding officer of the post
or brigade or station to which he may be attached.

The soldiers had the power of arrest and it proceeded in a chain of command from the CSA government through the commanding officer to the common officer and soldier.

On March 21, 1863 Lee sent out a circular to all his subordinate commanders ordering them to comply with General Orders No. 25. (National Archives citation:“W. H. Taylor to General, 21 March 1863, Orders and Circulars Issued by the Army of the Potomac and the Army and Department of Northern Virginia, C.S.A., 1861-1865, NA Microfilm M921, reel I, frame 1391)

From the CSA Congress to the CSA Army Adjutant to General Lee and from HQ to the officers and men of the ANV.

Can said agent ever be said to kidnap in the performance of his duty?

An agent performing his duty under the laws of his country is not kidnapping.
The catching of slaves by slave catchers is not kidnapping in a slave republic or in its army of occupation.

But what about US law.

Does a Rebel Army marching into US territory have to obey US civil laws? The US Supreme Court say no.

DOW v. JOHNSON. 100 U.S. 158 (, 25 L.Ed. 632)
This doctrine of non-liability to the tribunals of the invaded country for acts of warfare is as applicable to members of the Confederate army, when in Pennsylvania, as to members of the National army when in the insurgent States. The officers or soldiers of neither army could be called to account civilly or criminally in those tribunals for such acts, whether those acts resulted in the destruction of property or the destruction of life; nor could they be required by those tribunals to explain or justify their conduct upon any averment of the injured party that the acts complained of were unauthorized by the necessities of war. It follows that, in our judgment, the District Court of New Orleans was without jurisdiction to render the judgment in question, and the special pleas in this case constituted a perfect answer to the declaration. See Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509; Ford v. Surget, id. 594; also LeCaux v. Eden, 2 Doug. 594; Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187; and Coolidge v. Guthrie, 2 Amer. Law Reg. N. S. 22.
In brief the assertion of Military Necessity becomes almost universal free pass for all kind of things.

Justice in Blue and Gray: A Legal History of the Civil War By Stephen C. Neff P19
In a situation of belligerency, there could be no criminal prosecution of enemy soldiers for carrying out lawful orders of their sovereign . Enemies in short have to be defeated, but not punished.
Even in modern times, military necessity covers a lot of sins.
Military Necessity

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL. -
In the 19th century Military Necessity allowed that a number of Union and Confederate actions were legal: Grants Vicksburg Campaign, Sherman's March to the Sea and the ANV Pennsylvania Campaign. While technically legal it was tragic in human terms. War is tragic in its execution. Yes martial law proceeds out of the business ends of rifle muskets & bayonets and exists only where it can be enforced by force, it is nevertheless recognized as law.

Fugitive slaves that were free by virtue of the Emancipation Proclamation or by reaching Pennsylvania and free under US and Pennsylvania law were not free under the state of martial law that traveled with the ANV.

What about free blacks? From the evidence provided so far, some were freed upon notification of their status by soldiers and officers of the ANV. Others were freed upon arriving in VA. Neither case constitutions kidnapping. CSA governmental procedures were followed in a regular manner.

What about free blacks not freed immediately. That would be False Arrest. That is a civil offense, not a crime and not actionable under martial law. It is speculative that some free blacks were enslaved by misadventure, but that would happen in the CSA and by parties unrelated to the ANV. Also tangible evidence rather than speculation that it happened to the Pennsylvania blacks arrested by the ANV would be essential.

What about taking African Americans into personal procession without the intent of following orders. The individuals that do it are guilty of disobeying orders and committing fraud. The order "The captured contrabands had better be brought along with you for further disposition." Indicates that at the highest levels of the ANV orders were being issued to insure compliance with CSA law. Disobedience to orders is speculative requiting evidence that it happened, not that it was conspired or thought of as in the letter of Col. William Steptoe Christian

In Summary.
I
1. The ANV was acting as the agent of their Country in the arrest of African Americans.
2. They are immune from civil criminal actions by marital law.
3. Kidnapping is a civil criminal action.
Therefore the ANV was not kidnapping.

II
1. The ANV was acting as the agent of their Country in the arrest of African American property.
2. The laws of the Commander of the ANV was supreme law AKA martial law.
3. The commander ordered the collection of African American property belonging to Southern Slave Owners.
4. Said African American property was collected.
Therefore the ANV was not kidnapping.

III
1. The ANV was acting as the agent of their Country in the arrest of African Americans.
2. The laws of the Commander of the ANV was supreme law AKA martial law.
3. The commander ordered the collection of African American property belonging to Southern Slave Owners.
4. Incidental non property African American's were collected and released at various times and places.
5. #4 Constitutes the civil tort of False Arrest unrecognized under marital law.
Therefore the ANV was not kidnapping.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
782
It was recognized as a belligerent whose laws were in force where it had the capability to enforce them in this case military law. You can say a bubble of CSA law followed the ANV where ever it went.

The CSA army operated under military law which allowed individuals to be taken into custody until their status can be determined. It is military law that is operative rather than civilian law. Rhetorically it may be kidnapping for effect, but it is not historically accurate. Remember under military law at this time, the United States Army was taking blacks into custody to free them. The Confederacy was vocally rhetorical about that and some folks snicker at that rhetoric.

I offer the following into evidence.
From thread
Evaluation of evidence re [url=https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/the-plight-of-african-americans-in-the-path-of-the-army-of-northern-virginia-in-the-gettysburg-campaign/]The taking of blacks by the ANV during the Pennsylvania campaign[/url] post #125


The following is unquoted for readability

Assume a government agent has the power of arrest. Can that agent be called a kidnapper in the performance of his duties? This is the crux of the kidnapping issue.

Confederate General Order 25. March 6, 1863.
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That every person connected
with the army or navy of the Confederate States, arresting or coming into
possession of any slave, by capture from the enemy, or otherwise than by lawful
authority, shall immediately report the same to the commanding officer of the post
or brigade or station to which he may be attached.

The soldiers had the power of arrest and it proceeded in a chain of command from the CSA government through the commanding officer to the common officer and soldier.

On March 21, 1863 Lee sent out a circular to all his subordinate commanders ordering them to comply with General Orders No. 25. (National Archives citation:“W. H. Taylor to General, 21 March 1863, Orders and Circulars Issued by the Army of the Potomac and the Army and Department of Northern Virginia, C.S.A., 1861-1865, NA Microfilm M921, reel I, frame 1391)

From the CSA Congress to the CSA Army Adjutant to General Lee and from HQ to the officers and men of the ANV.

Can said agent ever be said to kidnap in the performance of his duty?

An agent performing his duty under the laws of his country is not kidnapping.
The catching of slaves by slave catchers is not kidnapping in a slave republic or in its army of occupation.

But what about US law.

Does a Rebel Army marching into US territory have to obey US civil laws? The US Supreme Court say no.

DOW v. JOHNSON. 100 U.S. 158 (, 25 L.Ed. 632)
This doctrine of non-liability to the tribunals of the invaded country for acts of warfare is as applicable to members of the Confederate army, when in Pennsylvania, as to members of the National army when in the insurgent States. The officers or soldiers of neither army could be called to account civilly or criminally in those tribunals for such acts, whether those acts resulted in the destruction of property or the destruction of life; nor could they be required by those tribunals to explain or justify their conduct upon any averment of the injured party that the acts complained of were unauthorized by the necessities of war. It follows that, in our judgment, the District Court of New Orleans was without jurisdiction to render the judgment in question, and the special pleas in this case constituted a perfect answer to the declaration. See Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509; Ford v. Surget, id. 594; also LeCaux v. Eden, 2 Doug. 594; Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187; and Coolidge v. Guthrie, 2 Amer. Law Reg. N. S. 22.
In brief the assertion of Military Necessity becomes almost universal free pass for all kind of things.

Justice in Blue and Gray: A Legal History of the Civil War By Stephen C. Neff P19
In a situation of belligerency, there could be no criminal prosecution of enemy soldiers for carrying out lawful orders of their sovereign . Enemies in short have to be defeated, but not punished.
Even in modern times, military necessity covers a lot of sins.
Military Necessity

Military necessity is a legal concept used in international humanitarian law (IHL) as part of the legal justification for attacks on legitimate military targets that may have adverse, even terrible, consequences for civilians and civilian objects. It means that military forces in planning military actions are permitted to take into account the practical requirements of a military situation at any given moment and the imperatives of winning. The concept of military necessity acknowledges that even under the laws of war, winning the war or battle is a legitimate consideration, though it must be put alongside other considerations of IHL. -
In the 19th century Military Necessity allowed that a number of Union and Confederate actions were legal: Grants Vicksburg Campaign, Sherman's March to the Sea and the ANV Pennsylvania Campaign. While technically legal it was tragic in human terms. War is tragic in its execution. Yes martial law proceeds out of the business ends of rifle muskets & bayonets and exists only where it can be enforced by force, it is nevertheless recognized as law.

Fugitive slaves that were free by virtue of the Emancipation Proclamation or by reaching Pennsylvania and free under US and Pennsylvania law were not free under the state of martial law that traveled with the ANV.

What about free blacks? From the evidence provided so far, some were freed upon notification of their status by soldiers and officers of the ANV. Others were freed upon arriving in VA. Neither case constitutions kidnapping. CSA governmental procedures were followed in a regular manner.

What about free blacks not freed immediately. That would be False Arrest. That is a civil offense, not a crime and not actionable under martial law. It is speculative that some free blacks were enslaved by misadventure, but that would happen in the CSA and by parties unrelated to the ANV. Also tangible evidence rather than speculation that it happened to the Pennsylvania blacks arrested by the ANV would be essential.

What about taking African Americans into personal procession without the intent of following orders. The individuals that do it are guilty of disobeying orders and committing fraud. The order "The captured contrabands had better be brought along with you for further disposition." Indicates that at the highest levels of the ANV orders were being issued to insure compliance with CSA law. Disobedience to orders is speculative requiting evidence that it happened, not that it was conspired or thought of as in the letter of Col. William Steptoe Christian

In Summary.
I
1. The ANV was acting as the agent of their Country in the arrest of African Americans.
2. They are immune from civil criminal actions by marital law.
3. Kidnapping is a civil criminal action.
Therefore the ANV was not kidnapping.

II
1. The ANV was acting as the agent of their Country in the arrest of African American property.
2. The laws of the Commander of the ANV was supreme law AKA martial law.
3. The commander ordered the collection of African American property belonging to Southern Slave Owners.
4. Said African American property was collected.
Therefore the ANV was not kidnapping.

III
1. The ANV was acting as the agent of their Country in the arrest of African Americans.
2. The laws of the Commander of the ANV was supreme law AKA martial law.
3. The commander ordered the collection of African American property belonging to Southern Slave Owners.
4. Incidental non property African American's were collected and released at various times and places.
5. #4 Constitutes the civil tort of False Arrest unrecognized under marital law.
Therefore the ANV was not kidnapping.
In other words white people get to decide that kidnapping black folks is cool. Maybe that's one reason out of many why we don't live in state of Kumbya.
Kirk's Raiders
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
992
Reaction score
961
I'm not all that sure there were a lot of people to kidnap in the first place - Gettysburg was not a big town and its black population was a couple hundred or so. Jenkins and McNeil were the main ones trying to take people, and they were irregular cavalry Lee didn't trust all that much in the first place. If Stuart had been there they probably would have behaved themselves better but as it was they got a little rowdy. Jenkins did catch a couple dozen black folks and threatened to burn down the town if he wasn't paid for them, but in the end he left and didn't come back. I don't think there were hundreds and hundreds taken but they were collecting them from places they passed through. I really can't think of any place to show Lee retreated with any of the people who might have been kidnapped - he had quite a long train of wounded to think about and sure wasn't concerned about any escaped slaves.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
I believe this is the only tangible evidence of the number of free blacks to end up in Richmond.
link
Richmond Daily Dispatch
Vol. Xxv — no.34 Richmond, Va. Saturday, August 8, 1863

Prison Record.
--At the Libby prison yesterday there were one hundred and sixty Yankees received, the last of these captured at Gettysburg.
At Castle Thunder sixty five negroes were received, who were captured by Stuart in Pennsylvania during the recent invasion of our army.

Castle Thunder was not a slave depot.
Castle Thunder, located between what is now 17th Street and 18th Street on northern side of E Cary Street[1] in Richmond, Virginia, was a former tobacco warehouse, located on Tobacco Row, converted into a prison used by the Confederacy to house civilian prisoners, including captured Union spies, political prisoners and those charged with treason during the American Civil War. A large number of its inmates were sentenced to death. Even though the inmates were sometimes allowed boxes of medicine and other supplies, the prison guards had a reputation for brutality.[2
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
I'm not all that sure there were a lot of people to kidnap in the first place - Gettysburg was not a big town and its black population was a couple hundred or so. Jenkins and McNeil were the main ones trying to take people, and they were irregular cavalry Lee didn't trust all that much in the first place. If Stuart had been there they probably would have behaved themselves better but as it was they got a little rowdy. Jenkins did catch a couple dozen black folks and threatened to burn down the town if he wasn't paid for them, but in the end he left and didn't come back. I don't think there were hundreds and hundreds taken but they were collecting them from places they passed through. I really can't think of any place to show Lee retreated with any of the people who might have been kidnapped - he had quite a long train of wounded to think about and sure wasn't concerned about any escaped slaves.
I think it is much ado about nothing.
 

byron ed

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
108
Reaction score
70
All this discussion about "kidnapping" being legal or illegal? It's to laugh.

Groups of real people -- flesh, bone and soul -- were being taken against their will. How can the mere etiology of a word a century and a half later be of any relevance whatsoever?

More to the point; does the legal intent of a kidnapper and their nation somehow absolve them and their nation of the act? Perhaps so if life was lived in a vacuum, but the act of kidnapping blacks from a free state was taking place in the same universe as the legal intent of those victims and their nation that they remain free.

To excuse kidnapping on a mere legal basis, at the same time ignoring the black experience, exposes prejudice, and frankly in this case racism.

And for what? There are no actual Confederates alive today, and no actual Confederate had ever asked or assigned anyone to apologize for them, particularly as they (most of them) didn't feel there was anything to apologize for to begin with.
 
Last edited:

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
1,953
Reaction score
782
I think it is much ado about nothing.
[/QUOTE
That sounds a bit racist since plenty of evidence has been shown that black people were kidnapped regardless of what nine of white men bon the Supreme Court said.
Maybe this is why people of color today are rioting because of such attitudes.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
764
Under your definition, Prisoners of War are kidnapped.
Not true. I said go into their homes not capture them on battlefields. These were non-combatants including women and children. Prisoners of war were armed combatants and their capture is part of war.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
It's not like others, Southern academics even, have not chased this topic down before us. Here's one take on it; one long excerpt from “Virginia’s Civil War” (2005 edited by Wallenstein and Brown, University of Virginia Press):

"[David G. Smith in his chapter “The Capture of African Americans during the Gettysburg Campaign”:]'The 1863 slave raids then were not just the case of renegade soldiers or private individuals independently capturing African Americans. Senior leaders such as Longstreet, Pickett, and Rodes were involved, and evidence also clearly implicates junior officers and senior non-commissioned officers.'

Smith Presees the seizure of black Pennsylvanians as part of broader foraging activities of the rebels during their 1863 invasion, carrying off anything that might be potentially valuable to their army and the Confederacy more generally. But he also believes that blacks not only were seized as a military asset, but also in revenge for the depredations of federal forces south of the Potomac River. Smith writes:

'The Pennsylvania slave raids were not an aberration, but an extension of Confederate warfare in the bitterly contested Virginia-Maryland-Pennsylvania theater. They were just a part of the efforts of a resolute army that was retaliating against a determined foe, repudiating the Emancipation Proclamation, capturing a labor force, and fighting to preserve a way of life based on mastery over African Americans.'

While there is no doubt much truth to David G. Smith’s assessment, it does not capture the shock and outrage of white Pennsylvanians when they saw their black neighbors carried away by the rebels. James M. Paradis has collected a number of heart-rendering accounts of Confederates capturing and sending south African Americans, some of whom had been born free, into slavery. The following is taken from his book, African Americans and the Gettysburg Campaign (2013), pp. 31-33. Paradis writes:

'Terror spread through the black communities in southern Pennsylvania when they heard of the approaching Confederate army. Whether freeborn or formerly enslaved, African Americans had much to fear.'

Jacob Hoke described the actions of the invading army around Chambersburg:

'One of the more revolting features of this day was the scouring of the fields about the town and searching of houses in portions of the place for negroes. The poor creatures–those of the who had not fled upon the approach of the foe–sought concealment in the growing wheat fields around the town. Into these the cavalrymen rode in search of their prey, and many were caught–some after a desperate chase and being fired at. In two cases, through the intercession of a friend who had influence with [Confederate General] Jenkins, I succeeded in effecting the release of the captured persons.'

Many other witnesses recorded this practice. The Reverend Dr. Philip Schaff observed, 'The town was occupied by an independent guerrilla band of cavalry, who steal horses, cattle, sheep, store-goods, Negroes, and whatever else they can make use of without ceremony and in evident violations of Lee’s proclamation read yesterday.' He continued,

'On Friday this guerilla band came to town on a regular slave-hunt, which presented the worst spectacle I ever saw in this war. They proclaimed, first, that they would burn down every house which harbored a fugitive slave, and did not deliver him up within twenty minutes. And then commenced the search upon all the houses which suspicion rested. It was a rainy afternoon. They succeeded in capturing several contrabands, among them a women with two children. A most pitiful sight, sufficient to settle the slavery question for every humane mind.'

The next day, June 27, Schaff reported that rebel troops drove:

'twenty one negroes through the town and towards Greencastle or Hagerstown. It was a sight as sad and as mournful as the slave-hunt yesterday. They claimed all these Negroes were Virginia slaves, but I was positively assured that two or three were born and raised in this neighborhood. One, Sam Brooks, split many a cord of wood for me. There were among them women and small children, sitting with sad countenances on Store-boxes. I asked one of the riders guarding the wagons, 'Do you not feel bad and mean in such an occupation?' He boldly replied that “he felt very comfortable. Comfortable. They were only reclaiming their property which we had stolen and harbored.'

Rachel Cormany watched the Confederates:

'hunting up the contrabands & driving them off by droves. O! How it grated on our hearts to have to sit quietly & look at such brutal deeds–I saw no men among the contrabands–all women & children. Some of the colored people who were raised here were taken along–I sat on the front step as they were driven by just like we would drive cattle. Some laughed & seemed not to care–but nearly all hung their heads. One woman was pleading wonderfully with the driver for her children–but all the sympathy she received from him was a rough 'March along'–at which she would quicken her pace again. It is a query what they wanted with those little babies–whole families were taken. Of course when the mother was taken she would take her children.'

The Reverend Thomas Creigh recorded in his diary for Friday, June 26, 'A terrible day. The guerillas passing and repassing, one of the saddest sights, several of our colored persons with them, to be sold into slavery, John Philkill and Findlay Cuff. The Rebels announced that they intended 'to search all houses for contrabands and fire arms and that wherever they discovered either they will set fire to the house in which they may be found.' The next day he reported the soldiers left, 'taking with them about a dozen colored persons, mostly contrabands, women and children.'

The raiders carried many of the “contraband” away in wagons. 'Some of the men were bound with ropes, and the children were mounted in front or behind the rebels on their horses.' Another citizen observed, 'They took all they could find, even little children, whom they had to carry on horseback before them.' William Heyser recorded in his diary on June 18, 'The Rebels have left Chambersburg taking with them about 250 colored people again into bondage."
I've chased this rabbit before. Most of these observations are recorded long after the event, depending on memory and by nonexpert observers. There is the problem of bias and counting the same person multiple times What we know is some number of free African American individuals were taken by the ANV. This taking was legal in the eyes of the Confederates and no US court every ruled different. There is a US court decision that says actions by the ANV were not a subject for The US court system.

We can say that the taking happened. We have witnesses and not denials. On the other hand, we have tangible evidence of about 60 Pennsylvania blacks interned in Richmond. There is no evidence of any more that I am aware of.

War is a horrible thing, what we have here is African Americans caught up and deprived of freedom for at most 18 months. Meanwhile, 10,000 men died on the battlefield, more later from wounds, many were crippled for life, women lost sons, Wifes lost husbands, children became orphans, perhaps cast into the streets. Pennsylvania citizens lost everything. That is before the slaughter of 10s of thousands of horses, I am unable to be passionate about one note in the symphony of horror. My apologies to those who are passionate about it.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
Not true. I said go into their homes not capture them on battlefields. These were non-combatants including women and children. Prisoners of war were armed combatants and their capture is part of war.
So the women of Roswell, Ga were kidnapped by Sherman? Sherman went into their homes and they were non-combatants including women and children. The whole Cherokee nation was kidnapped in the same way. Looks to me that your definition is interestingly broad.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
764
So the women of Roswell, Ga were kidnapped by Sherman? Sherman went into their homes and they were non-combatants including women and children. The whole Cherokee nation was kidnapped in the same way. Looks to me that your definition is interestingly broad.
Indeed. But that doesn't make ANV's activities NOT kidnapping. It's an old, old tactic to say, "Oh yeah! Well so and so did that too." It doesn't negate the facts and we both know that, to quote John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things."
 
Top