Observed 'Black Confederate' Types

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Black Confederate Servants
Black Confederate Teamsters
Black Confederate Laborers
Black Confederate Soldiers.
Black Confederate Slaves.
Black Confederate Illegals.
Black Confederate Cooks.
Black Confederate Musicians

Any More?
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Free Black men...


At least one slave, George Mills, followed his owner into battle. George Mills is buried at Oakdale Cemetery in Hendersonville.
At least one free black, Butler Owens of Edneyville, enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861. He is buried at St. Paul Cemetery in Edneyville.
Three years of extensive research has found no slaves from Henderson County who joined the Union Army. There is evidence to indicate a slave owned by the Drake family joined the Union in April 1865 (end of the war).
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
HE HAS A PENSION RECORD... Butler Owens... he past Indian maybe he wanted to hide he was black...


One of our subscribers was looking at the new 1901 Confederate Pension Applications on Digital North Carolina and found an application for Butler Owens in which he states he is part Indian and part white. He apparently joined the Confederate service in Edneyville which is an unincorporated part of Henderson County, NC.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
There's an interesting thing - he might have been an Indian classified as colored or Negro. It was common to do that, which is why a quarter of the slaves in the South were Indians.
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
Black Confederate Servants
Black Confederate Teamsters
Black Confederate Laborers
Black Confederate Soldiers.
Black Confederate Slaves.
Black Confederate Illegals.
Black Confederate Cooks.
Black Confederate Musicians

Any More?
Black Confedrate back door men?
In other words when the cats away the mice will play.
Leftyhunter
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
There's an interesting thing - he might have been an Indian classified as colored or Negro. It was common to do that, which is why a quarter of the slaves in the South were Indians.
I'm not buying that 25 percent of the slaves in the South were Indians. The total remaining Indian population in the slave South at the time was nowhere near one-quarter of the population, let alone those enslaved. I'd buy 2 percent or so, maybe 5 percent to count mixed native lineage, though there are no figures available to academically verify any percent claimed.

But I know how an idea like that might have gained traction. For years, perhaps even today but especially in the 1960s through 80s, many blacks were claiming some Indian ancestry (in that time before DNA kits were generally available). It was explained to me by black college friends there was a common black family story associated with the fact that there were some Indian tribes in the South that were never defeated or enslaved by euro-Americans, such that one could believably claim "some of my old folks were free and independent -- not all step-and-fetch-its." Cogniscent or not, it was an attempt to set aside some of the shame of one's ancestors being slaves.* I'd be interested to know if anyone else here has encountered this.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* On that tack, perhaps should be bumped as new thread ...I have noticed that in my reenactment/museum outreach as an "UGRR Conductor" that older generation black spectators tend to avoid my presentation (joke opportunity noted -- have at it). It seems the older black generations can't quite stomach some white guy explaining black history to their kids, and from their perspective I can't say I blame them. Of those that stayed there were one or two compelled to bring up their Indian ancestry. What's interesting to me though is that none of the younger generation in tow seemed to know what was going on with their parents or grandparents in this regard, so I think its a generational thing.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
I'm not buying that 25 percent of the slaves in the South were Indians. The total remaining Indian population in the slave South at the time was nowhere near one-quarter of the population, let alone those enslaved. I'd buy 2 percent or so, maybe 5 percent to count mixed native lineage, though there are no figures available to academically verify any percent claimed.

But I know how an idea like that might have gained traction. For years, perhaps even today but especially in the 1960s through 80s, many blacks were claiming some Indian ancestry (in that time before DNA kits were generally available). It was explained to me by black college friends there was a common black family story associated with the fact that there were some Indian tribes in the South that were never defeated or enslaved by euro-Americans, such that one could believably claim "some of my old folks were free and independent -- not all step-and-fetch-its." Cogniscent or not, it was an attempt to set aside some of the shame of one's ancestors being slaves.* I'd be interested to know if anyone else here has encountered this.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* On that tack, perhaps should be bumped as new thread ...I have noticed that in my reenactment/museum outreach as an "UGRR Conductor" that older generation black spectators tend to avoid my presentation (joke opportunity noted -- have at it). It seems the older black generations can't quite stomach some white guy explaining black history to their kids, and from their perspective I can't say I blame them. Of those that stayed there were one or two compelled to bring up their Indian ancestry. What's interesting to me though is that none of the younger generation in tow seemed to know what was going on with their parents or grandparents in this regard, so I think its a generational thing.
When chattel slavery first started in the south, the vast majority of slaves were native people, not black. These people propagated and also had kids with blacks. It is quite probable that 25% of the slave population in the CSA was Indian. Again, you fail to do your research.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
Byron-ed - ever wonder why Ahab's ship was named the Pequot? ;)
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
I'm not buying that 25 percent of the slaves in the South were Indians. The total remaining Indian population in the slave South at the time was nowhere near one-quarter of the population, let alone those enslaved. I'd buy 2 percent or so, maybe 5 percent to count mixed native lineage, though there are no figures available to academically verify any percent claimed.

But I know how an idea like that might have gained traction. For years, perhaps even today but especially in the 1960s through 80s, many blacks were claiming some Indian ancestry (in that time before DNA kits were generally available). It was explained to me by black college friends there was a common black family story associated with the fact that there were some Indian tribes in the South that were never defeated or enslaved by euro-Americans, such that one could believably claim "some of my old folks were free and independent -- not all step-and-fetch-its." Cogniscent or not, it was an attempt to set aside some of the shame of one's ancestors being slaves.* I'd be interested to know if anyone else here has encountered this.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* On that tack, perhaps should be bumped as new thread ...I have noticed that in my reenactment/museum outreach as an "UGRR Conductor" that older generation black spectators tend to avoid my presentation (joke opportunity noted -- have at it). It seems the older black generations can't quite stomach some white guy explaining black history to their kids, and from their perspective I can't say I blame them. Of those that stayed there were one or two compelled to bring up their Indian ancestry. What's interesting to me though is that none of the younger generation in tow seemed to know what was going on with their parents or grandparents in this regard, so I think its a generational thing.
Here's the issue. BEFORE the African slave trade kicked into gear, Natives were already enslaved on colonial plantations. After the Pequot War, most of the survivors were shipped to the West Indies. There was a solid trade from Central and South America in Indian slaves. This part of the history of slavery isn't known very well - not at all for the most part. The fact was, Indians tended to die and Africans didn't...plus, they were cheaper. That sounds perfectly horrible and it is, but a slave trader could pick up a hundred prime slaves for a five dollar bolt of cloth, and sell each of them for hundreds. The profit was obscene. So - forget the Indians, go for the Africans. (Didn't have to fool with the Spanish, either, who wanted their cut.) Slavery predicated on race gets complicated. Just look at all the laws and regulations the antebellum South had! Everybody was a slave of some sort by that time.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
When chattel slavery first started in the south, the vast majority of slaves were native people, not black. These people propagated and also had kids with blacks. It is quite probable that 25% of the slave population in the CSA was Indian. Again, you fail to do your research.
No. Though Indians were enslaved by the Spanish in the Americas, the chattel slavery system of the U.S. south had not yet been established. I understand the confusion though, because the slave populations of middle and south America had a larger percent of natives, where 25 percent would not be a stretch.

But pay attention, do the research. This is about the place and time referenced in this thread, the U.S. slave South. Over the prior century native Americans had proved to be an inefficient slave force in that latitude because they couldn't easily be contained. They had cultural refuge (with associated tribes) beyond their captors and escapees had full knowledge of the geography and fauna, so could survive well once escaped. It for this very reason that the trans-Atlantic slave trade began in earnest. It was to re-supply the plantations in the Americas with a labor force more manageable. Black Africans were used because they were separated from their traditional cultural refuge (their associated tribes in Africa) and because they did not have any knowledge of the geography or fauna, plus they were even more identifiable for their skin color.

It was the Dutch that began the contract importation of African slaves to North America to fulfill that market (they had been supplying their own Northeast settlements). However the primary contract for southern slaves passed to an English and Spanish cooperative Corporation (Assiento) that had the capability to import African slaves by the thousands (being that the English and Spanish ruled the waves by that time). It was this scale of reliable importation that enabled the development of the formal chattel system in the U.S. South. By the 18th century it was black slaves that comprised the essence of the chattel system in the slave south. That a small percentage of them were instead native or mixed-native is interesting but not particularly significant. Certainly nothing on the scale of a quarter of the slave population in the U.S. South.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
It hard to find info...

.

snip...

Carolina, which originally included today's North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, was unique among the North American English colonies because the colonists thought of slavery as essential to their success.[31][33] In 1680, proprietors ordered the Carolina government to ensure that enslaved Native Americans had equal justice[further explanation needed] and to treat them better than African slaves; these regulations were widely publicized, so no one could claim ignorance of them.[31] The change in policy in Carolina was rooted in fear that escaped slaves would inform their tribes, resulting in even more devastating attacks on plantations.[31] The new policy proved almost impossible to enforce, as both colonists and local officials viewed Native Americans and Africans as the same, and the exploitation of both as the easiest way to wealth, though the proprietors continued to attempt to enforce the changes for profit reasons.[further explanation needed][31]

snip...

Records and slave narratives obtained by the WPA (Works Progress Administration) clearly indicate that the enslavement of Native Americans continued in the 1800s, mostly through kidnappings.[35] One example is a documented WPA interview from a former slave, Dennis Grant, whose mother was full-blooded Native American.[35] She was kidnapped as a child near Beaumont, Texas, in the 1850s, and made a slave, later becoming the forced wife of another enslaved person.[35] The abductions showed that even in the 1800s little distinction was still made between African Americans and Native Americans.[35] Both Native American and African-American enslaved people were at risk of sexual abuse by slaveholders and other white men of power.[46][47] The pressures of slavery also gave way to the creation of colonies of runaway slaves and Native Americans living in Florida, called Maroons.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
I found this about South Carolina...

snip...


How did the Native Americans come to be slaves? The tribes in South Carolina were often at war with one another. In consequence, they learned to hunt down and capture members of enemy tribes, selling them to whites as slaves. Others, of course, were captured and sold by the new settlers directly. In either case, Native Americans made up a large share of South Carolina's seventeenth- and eighteenth-century slave population.

In time, however, white planters began to "phase out" the use of Native Americans on their plantations. For one thing, they had decided that Africans were far better suited to the back-breaking work of cultivating rice than Indians were. For another, black people seemed to have a stronger resistance to white diseases like small pox and yellow fever. And finally, white people learned that if a Native American slave ran away, they probably weren't going to find him again. Native Americans were all too familiar with the nooks and crannies of "the new world." They knew where to hide, and they knew how to find help. If they could escape, they could take refuge in the midst of a nearby tribe.

Nevertheless, strong ties formed between South Carolina's Native Americans and the Africans who were brought to her shore. These ties were especially strong in regards to religion. Minges points out some of the other bonds Indians and blacks shared:

In addition to working together in the fields, they lived together in communal living quarters, began to produce collective recipes for food and herbal remedies, shared myths and legends, and ultimately intermarried. Apart from their collective exploitation at the hands of colonial slavery, Africans and Native Americans possessed similar worldviews rooted in their historic relationship to the subtropical coastlands of the middle Atlantic.

If you are interested in learning more about South Carolina's Native American slaves, you may want to read Minges' article in full. It is called All My Slaves, Whether Negroes, Indians, Mustees, or Molattoes, and you can find it by clicking here.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Black Confederate Servants
Black Confederate Teamsters
Black Confederate Laborers
Black Confederate Soldiers.
Black Confederate Slaves.
Black Confederate Illegals.
Black Confederate Cooks.
Black Confederate Musicians...
A moot list really, since apparently none of those folks identified themselves as "Black Confederates" back in the day -- they only being called that by others by about, say,1995 or so.

As at least halfway intelligent and observant people here, why do we willfully continue to spin over such an obviously-invented historical fiction like "Black Confederates" anyway? I mean we may as well just be slamming our shins into a coffee table. There's no point to it. It merely exposes our deficiencies as true historians. Is it to be polite? You know, we don't actually owe Black Confederate proponents anything given the trumped-up (or should that be "Trumped-up?) nature of their evidence. Imho we should just leave them alone to stew over that embarrassingly short-lived and stunted past they've chosen to claim for themselves -- in lieu of making significant personal accomplishments of their own in today's world.
 
Last edited:

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
One could could do worse. Recall supposing that [diane]s idea that indians represented 25 percent of the southern slave population was viable?
Got some reading for you, byron-ed!

The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in the Americas by Andres Resendez.

I can get you more if you like that - it's an appetizer.
 
Top