Ceremony for black Confederate

read the EP.
Seriously, obviously they were allowed to be soldiers... that is established fact.
Once again, I commented on a post in which the poster said " what about the 200,000 black union soldiers who fought FOR THEIR COUNTRY. My only comment about was that I did not think that under the Dred Scott decision, they wwere considered citizens

Perhaps they were not considered citizens under Dred Scott, Ed, and we know for absolute certainty they were not citizens of the CSA, but they could fight for their country, the one that gave them hope for a better future, could they not?

Today, we have foreign nationals who enlist in the United States Army who are not citizens of the United States, but who fight for the country they serve and more often than not, at the end of that service, are sworn as citizens of the United States. Happened a few times while I was in.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

What about state citizenship? I can find southerners complaining that blacks had citizenship in Massachusetts and a few other northern states, but can't find the specific Massachusetts laws. Southerners were mostly worried that they'd be forced to recognize reciprocal citizenship. Anyone know for sure if they could be citizens of Massachusetts or other specific states? If they could, they could at least be fighting as citizens of their state, if not their country.

The Dred Scott decision explicitly states that negroes can be citizens of a state, viz:

A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.

The term "foreigner or any other description of persons" includes negroes.

Of course, the reality is that at varying levels in the various states, so-called black codes deprived blacks of rights available to white residents.

The 1792 Militia Act, signed by president George Washington, limited service in militias to free white persons (specifically, to "free able-bodied white male citizen(s)"); this was interpreted to mean that blacks could not serve in the US army. In July of 1862, the Militia Act of 1862 went into law, which authorized blacks to be enlisted into the US Army. Based on that authority, five black Union regiments were mustered into service - three from Louisiana, one from Kansas, and one from South Carolina - even before the final version of the EP was issued on January 1, 1863.

Following that, many black regiments were raised from the states, and 180,000 blacks enlisted in the Union army. (The majority of Union colored troops were from the Confederate and Union slave states.) This all happened before the passage of the 14th Amendment, which overturned the Dred Scott decision, and established people of African descent (and all people born in the US) as US citizens.

An interesting footnote: In 1862, US Attorney-General Edward Bates issued an Opinion on citizenship:

OPINION. ATTORNEY GENERAL' S OFFICE, November 29, 1862.

(To) HON. S. P. CHASE, Secretary of the Treasury.

SIR: Some time ago I had the honor to receive your letter submitting, for my opinion, the question whether or not colored men can be citizens of the United States. The urgency of other unavoidable engagements, and the great importance of the question itself, have caused me to delay the answer until now.

Your letter states that "the schooner Elizabeth and Margaret, of New Brunswick, is detained by the revenue cutter Tiger, at South Amboy, New Jersey, because commanded by a 'colored man,' and so by a person not a citizen of the United States. As colored masters are numerous in our coasting trade, I submit, for your opinion, the question suggested by Captain Martin, of the Tiger: Are colored men citizens of the United States, and therefore competent to command American vessels?"

The question would have been more clearly stated if, instead of saying are colored men citizens, it had been said, can colored men be citizens of the United States; for within our borders and upon our ships, both of war and commerce, there may be colored men, and white men, also, who'are not citizens of the United States.

In treating the subject, I shall endeavor to answer your question as if it imported only this: Is a man legally incapacitated to be a citizen of the United States by the sole fact that he is a colored, and not a white man? Who is a citizen? What constitutes a citizen of the United States? I have often been pained by the fruitless search in our law books and, the records of our courts, for a clear and satisfactory definition of' the phrase citizen of the United States. I find no such definition, no, authoritative establishment of the meaning of the phrase, neither by' a course of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of our political government...

...Finally, the celebrated case of Scott vs. Sanford, 19 Howard's Reports, 393, is sometimes cited as a direct authority against the capacity of free persons of color to be citizens of the United States. That is an entire mistake. The case, as it stands of record, does not determine, nor purport to determine, that question...

...upon the whole matter, I give it as my opinion that the man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, and, if otherwise qualified, is competent according to the acts of Congress, to be master of a vessel...

...your obedient servant, EDWARD BATES, Attorney General.

In that opinion, Bates says that people of color are citizens of the United States, if they were born in the US. Within the text of the opinion, Bates notes in some detail that in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court did not technically have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of citizenship for free blacks, and therefore, the Court's ruling on that issue was not controlling.

Many blacks of the time, including, for example, Frederick Douglass, hailed Bates' opinion, saying that finally, African Americans were recognized as US citizens. I do not know if this ruling was ever challenged in the courts, or if it was used elsewhere throughout the country to make the case for full citizenship for free blacks.

- Alan

I don't know if it's technically true that all the blacks who served in the Union army were free before they enlisted, in the case of enlistees from the Union Border/slave states. I'll need to look this up, but at some point the law might have been such that slaves could enlist, and perhaps without "formal" manumission from their masters. Or at least, Union recruiters did not necessarily verify (read, care) that the potential enlistees before them were free black or not.

I do know that 23,700 blacks from Kentucky served in the Union army, which was the second largest contingent of black Union troops from any state (Louisiana was tops with 24,000 black troops). I believe that at least some of them had fled their masters to serve in the Army, knowing that enlistment automatically gave them freeman status.

I'll try to find out what the details are on this.

ForeverFree,

Excellent research on your post #145 above.

Thank you for taking the time to post it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

the issue was the phrasing, not the enlistment... I continue to believe it was a legitimate question vis a vis Dred Scott

It was a legitimate question, hopefully posts 136 and 145 answer the question concerning how blacks felt about citizenship and support for the Union. If you feel those posts are not enough of a response, let me know, perhaps I can add more.

- Alan

yes, the question has been answered to my satisfaction.

This is not something that I would ask for now, but, it would be useful to state who these black academics are, and to note exactly what they said in terms of numbers and percentages. I was somewhat alarmed that you mentioned Ervin Jordan among "the black academics," given that his book in no case states or implies that so large a percentage of the CSA armed forces were of African descent. In fact, this was reported in the New York Times in 2010:

As Kevin Sieff reported in The Washington Post on Wednesday, historians are wondering how a fourth-grade textbook in Virginia was approved despite including the spurious claim that “Thousands of Southern blacks fought in the Confederate ranks, including two black battalions under the command of Stonewall Jackson.”

Asked about her sources, the textbook’s author, Joy Masoff — whose other books include “Fire!” and “Oh Yikes! History’s Grossest, Wackiest Moments” — cited Ervin Jordan, a University of Virginia historian who is the author of “Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia.”

Like other noted historians (emphasis added), Mr. Jordan told The Post that while there is documentary evidence that some African-Americans fought for the Confederacy, “There’s no way of knowing that there were thousands…. And the claim about Jackson is totally false.”

And then, you make the note that the 8-12% number is your personal estimation. Hmmm...

So perhaps it's fair to say, at the least, that "some black academics" think that a large but unknown numbers of blacks fought for the CSA, as opposed to saying "the black academics" who believe that 8-12% fought for Confederacy?

Also, you cited that Frederick Douglass was among those who said there were "thousands" of blacks in the CSA armed forces. Let's ignore the current controversy over whether or not he actually had evidence of black troops in the Confederacy. Let's consider what he said, and do so as if it were fact:

It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still. There is a Negro in the army as well as in the fence, and our Government is likely to find it out before the war comes to an end.

That the Negroes are numerous in the rebel army, and do for that army its heaviest work, is beyond question. They have been the chief laborers upon those temporary defences in which the rebels have been able to mow down our men. Negroes helped to build the batteries at Charleston. They relieve their gentlemanly and military masters from the stiffening drudgery of the camp, and devote them to the nimble and dexterous use of arms. Rising above vulgar prejudice, the slaveholding rebel accepts the aid of the black man as readily as that of any other. If a bad cause can do this, why should a good cause be less wisely conducted?

What's interesting to me is the second paragraph, where he says "That the Negroes are numerous in the rebel army, and do for that army its heaviest work, is beyond question, " and "They relieve their gentlemanly and military masters from the stiffening drudgery of the camp, and devote them to the nimble and dexterous use of arms." Much of the reference from Douglass talks to the use of blacks as laborers, not as armed soldiers.

Of course, he explicitly cites blacks as armed combatants, but the emphasis on blacks as laborers. I guess the "many colored men" he mentions could be a number in the thousands... I guess. The thing is, the idea that Douglass would have said that 8-12% of armed Confederate forces were of African descent is not something that I get from his comments. Indeed, he says "There is a Negro in the army as well as in the fence, and our Government is likely to find it out before the war comes to an end." Thus, he acknowledges that to date, the US government has not seen much evidence of the size of the role of the negro Confederate soldier - although it's likely the government will before the end of the war. (Since Douglass was not in the Confederate states to see these men for himself; and since he suggests that the Union army hasn't yet found out about the (large scale) presence of the Negro soldier in the Confederate Army; one wonders about Douglass' sources.)

I guess I'm saying, I'm from Missouri on this one. I'd like to see more detail at some future time about which black academics are making these statements, and about exactly what they said.

- Alan

ForeverFree,

See my post # 95 of this thread. It was I who gave what must be 8-12% of the Confederate armed forces if the high number of black Confederates is true. Now before you ask me to prove something, please keep in mind that it is my opinion that these numbers are grossly exaggerated. I will be busy for the next couple of days, but I will be glad to discuss it with you in more detail sometime after Thursday night.

In the meantime, I agree that perhaps I shouldn’t have included Erwin Jordan on the list, as he didn’t go overboard with his estimates of black Confederates.

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

Mark Twain

The Union army had more white men in it too ? So it would figure that there was less blacks serving the South? Just a thought.

I thought there was more than that too, but he quoted 13k? Maybe I read the wrong histoy book. Still, the point is more manpower in the North as it was.

shanniereb,

I "guesstimated" once, long ago, that there might have been as many as 13,000 blacks who served as "soldiers" within the Confederate ranks, simply based on the idea that there were almost 4 million slaves serving the Confederacy and that a small percentage might have made their way into the ranks. In my view, there are exceptions to every rule, even the rule that the Confederate army had of having no blacks, slave or free, serve as soldiers within the army.

Now I am not sure. I have seen no firm, physical evidence that anywhere near the 13,000 figure is true or not. I have certainly seen no recent evidence of such and have begun to doubt my own estimate of 13,000 as nowhere near that figure has ever been proved to my own satisfaction.

While I have not doubt that here and there, there was an exception and that a black slave or freeman picked up a musket and fired at Union troops or that there was a favorite slave who was afforded a chance to serve, in my own view the idea that there were tens of thousands of black Confederate soldiers is pure myth and an attempt to deny that slavery was a cause of the war, and a modern-day myth at that.

Hope that helps clarify my statement that Johan refers to.

Sincerely,
Unionblue