Sometimes when it comes to the status of “soldier,” it’s worthwhile to offer a few comparisons to allow people to ponder what they mean when they say what they say.
Was Fred Grant a Civil War soldier? The eldest son of Ulysses S. Grant accompanied his father on the Vicksburg campaign … and was hit at Big Black River. He was just shy of his thirteenth birthday. His name can be found on the interior wall of the Illinois monument at Vicksburg. He ate army food. Was he on the payroll or rosters? No.
Was John Burns a Civil War soldier? The story of how Burns came out to the McPherson Farm on July 1 and joined in with the Union defenders of that area is well known. He fired at Confederate soldiers. He was wounded several times. He fell into enemy hands. Was he on a roster? No. Was he paid? No. Does his name appear on the Pennsylvania state monument? I believe not, although there is a statue to Burns on the field.
Was Jennie Wade a Civil War soldier? After all, when she was killed on July 3, she was making bread, supposedly for Union soldiers. That might raise questions as to her status as a non-combatant. Her name does not appear on a paymaster’s roll or a roster, and her name does not appear on the Pennsylvania state monument although there is a statue of her outside the house where she was killed.
So, tell me … were any of these people Civil War soldiers? How do you relate that assessment to the notion that an enslaved African American who was an officer’s body servant, a teamster, or a cook was a soldier in the Confederate army?
It can’t be said they were soldiers, but it could be said they were fed like soldiers, or were shot like soldiers, or fought like soldiers.
… and their service and participation has been monumentalized.
Precisely. As you may detect, my inquiry cuts in several directions.
No, they weren’t. The 19th century of soldier was quite strict and very tied in with the status dividers of that time.
I would not say that they were soldiers, because that’s a particular status. However, if we set aside efforts at misrepresentation of status, what do we say in comparing these cases with those of African Americans who contributed (perhaps quite involuntarily) to the Confederate war effort as non-soldiers?
What we need to be is honest and provide context. To me, one of the biggest problems is that these discussions often bog down on how these enslaved African-Americans perceived themselves. That is a valid level of inquiry, hampered by a shortage of first-hand evidence, but it misses a very crucial aspect of the inquiry: The white power structure was not just indifferent to the opinions and views of the enslaved; it didn’t believe that the enslaved HAD opinions and viewpoints, at least not ones worthy of consideration.
Look at how the prisoner-exchange cartel broke down over Confederate refusal to accord POW status to captured Union soldiers who were black. This meant that, as a policy matter, the Confederate top echelon was willing to leave their POWs (obviously white) in Union prison camps rather than recognize “negroes in arms” in US uniform as POWs until the very end of the war.
I don’t know what Fred was doing on the fieod, so I cannot comment on him. Virginia Wade was doing what any number of locals did at Civil War battlefields around the country, working in homes to minister to the wounds of soldiers, provide food to them, and comfort. This is not a soldier’s role.
John Burns is a different situation entirely. He left his home, tried to enlist help from his neighbors and failing that, went to the field and took up position with a Pennsylvania Regiment [I think in Stone's First Corps Brigade] and took on Brockenbough’s Virginia Brigade with them. Although not enlisted, and not a member of a unit there, John Burns was acting in the role of soldier, and apparently quite effectively. I see no reason not to consider him a soldier. He received power and shot from the regiment he stood with. Mr. Burns was quite a character.
I think his name should be on the Pennsylvania Monument, probably with the 150th Pennsylvania.
powder not power…
I do not consider slaves working for the Confederacy to be soldiers. I fail to fathom how anyone who was a slave would willingly fight for their owner. I also do not believe there were any more than a few incidents where slaves picked up arms and used them against the Union troops. And I mean few…not hundreds, not dozens…a few.
If any one of the people you mentioned were captured by the opposing army, how were they treated? The answer to that more specific question may not answer the broader question you are asking, but would give indication of how these irregular participants were viewed at the time.
With regard to African Americans forced into the service of the Confederacy, what was the Union response when Union forces came into contact with said peoples ? (Some what of a rhetorical question..) How many Confederate related African Americans ended up in Union prisoner of war camps as actual POW’s?
I’m not trying to be cute, but given the lack of agency that is part and parcel of the word “enslaved”, the better example is Traveler or Rienzi…”forced labor” is about as polite as one can make it.
John Burns chose to take up arms, essentially as an irregular or guerilla; Fred Grant was a child whose parents (obviously) approved of his travels; Ginnie Wade was a civilian.
“Soldier” is a legal status, as are all of the above.
Enslaved human beings were just that; they were not soldiers.
I can’t believe the Grants didn’t make their son where a helmet.
In modern terms, John Burns was a “terrorist” and, had he been captured, the Confederates could have executed him,
I think he was captured and then let go by the Confederates.
I don’t know about contemporary times, but 99 years ago the Germans did do exactly what you’re saying to some Belgian or alleged Belgian “irregulars”.
The Confederates did take some white civilian prisoners from Gettysburg back to Richmond. I don’t know why they left Burns. Perhaps it was because he was wounded or perhaps they felt he was an essentially harmless old coot. On the other hand, George Codori was taken prisoner (no one is sure why; one story says he was wearing a Union cap) for the rest of the war and died shortly after his return home.
No, in modern terms Burns was a partisan, a legal combatant because Pennsylvania was his home. Which makes it a bit troubling and disturbing that some Afghani soldiers captured in Afghanistan wound up in Guantanamo without the benefit of formal charges in front of a military tribunal.
Wouldn’t this bring up the question of men who fought as guerrillas or partisans, but never formally enrolled in the Confederate Army or any state militia? My case in point deals with Colonel Joseph C. Porter of the CSA, who was a certified commissioned officer of the CSA. He was sent to Northeast Missouri where his home was to recruit troops and bring them back south to join with General Sterling Price’s command where they would be enlisted. Price was short of men due to the orders from the East that sucked manpower from the areas west of the Mississippi. Porter raised several hundred men and commenced guerrilla operations in NEMO (which I don’t think he was supposed to do). After some successes his men, most of whom were unarmed and not enlisted in the CSA as of yet were decisively defeated at the Battle of Kirksville in August 1862. Eventually a few hundred straggled south to join the CSA.
Generally, any of these men were considered soldiers, but were they really soldiers in the formal sense? They had made a decision to fight for the South but most never made it to Confederate lines to do so. I personally think it reflects the gray areas like this as well as the lack of choice many people in some areas faced.
Brooks inquiring mind wants to know. . .
“So, tell me … were any of these people Civil War soldiers? How do you relate that assessment to the notion that an enslaved African American who was an officer’s body servant, a teamster, or a cook was a soldier in the Confederate army?”
Fred Grant may arguably be considered a boy soldier of circumstance, he was present with his father on campaign and surely assisted him and the army in some capacity other than being along for the ride.
John Burns was a veteran and performed service as a citizen soldier at the time, he fought in defense of his community as any other militia man therefore, he was serving in battle alongside the U.S. Army in the capacity of a soldier, thus he was a soldier.
Jenny Wade was a civilian and is a very poor analogy to even consider that because she may have been making bread for Union soldiers for one day does not equate in comparison to being a soldiers cook let alone a soldier for her contribution to that of free/slave black soldiers.
The roles of African Americans as Confederate Slaves/Soldiers were more complex and varied even as slaves even as soldiers. There were many hundreds, thousands and millions of Confederate Slaves who served in defense of the Confederacy in various capacities, that is why the EP was such an important military measure against the South. Thousands would certainly fall under the definition of soldiers serving in the Confederate army even if they were doing so in non-combative roles.
The short definition for a soldier is as follows:
soldier |ˈsəʊldʒə|
noun
1 a person who serves in an army.
• (also common soldier or private soldier )a private in an army.
2 Entomology a wingless caste of ant or termite with a large specially modified head and jaws, involved chiefly in defence.
3 Brit. informal a strip of bread or toast, used for dipping into a soft-boiled egg.
4 [ usu. as modifier ] an upright brick, timber, or other building element.
verb [ no obj. ]
1 serve as a soldier: (as nounsoldiering) : soldiering was what the Colonel understood.
2 (soldier on) informal carry on doggedly; persevere: Graham wasn’t enjoying this, but he soldiered on.
DERIVATIVES
soldierly adjective,
soldiership noun( archaic)
If we adhere to the first definition of a soldier then it applies to anyone who serves in an army in any capacity, then certainly that connotation can be applied to Confederate slaves in the army serving as soldiers. Slaves have served as soldiers throughout history in supportive and combative roles. So why is there a particular issue with Confederate slaves being referred to as soldiers? Why deny them that sobriquet if they served in any capacity of the Confederate armies? Confederate and Union soldiers alike disputed that blacks ever served as soldiers, but this was likely because of their bigotry not because it wasn’t so. Post war recollections show the majority of white soldiers had little enthusiasm in honoring men of color for serving in either army. Some whites did however honor black men for their part and that needs to be considered as much of the subject as anything else.
The definition that is operative is the definition in use at the time and the classification system used by contemporaries … not what it says in a dictionary today (how presentist of you).
Nor do we get to retroactively reclassify people to make ourselves feel better or to satisfy some agenda.
It’s actually quite simple: just because I show up at Yankee Stadium wearing a cap and a jersey does not make me a member of the New York Yankees. I may cheer for the home team or catch a foul ball, but that does not make me a member of the New York Yankees. I may even take batting practice and talk to the players, but that does not make me a member of the New York Yankees.
BDS-
“The definition that is operative is the definition in use at the time and the classification system used by contemporaries …”
*
Enlisted.
That would exclude most of the individuals celebrated by the proponents of the argument that a significant number of enslaved African Americans served in the Confederate armed forces.
A critical test was how someone was treated if captured by the other side. Confederates refused to treat captured Union soldiers who were black as POWs even when it meant that thousands of white men whose status as Confederate soldiers is undisputed remained in Union POW camps. This makes no sense if Confederate authorities saw black men, whether enslaved or free(d), performing labor for the Confederate armies as soldiers.
And how were they treated *after* the war? Neither Fed Grant nor Burns were eligible for military pensions for their Civil War “service” nor were the black Confederates eligible for soldier pensions by the former Confederate states.
M.D. Blough-
“Confederates refused to treat captured Union soldiers who were black as POWs…”
They counted the slaves who joined the Federal army to be illegal combatants (didn’t the American side in the Revolutionary War hold the same view about slaves who joined the British?) and those who led them (white officers) or acted in concert with them – example: the burning of Darien, GA, by the 2nd SC (former slaves) and 54th MA (free).
The Confederates did eventually change their view on those who were free-
“HEADQUARTERS, October 18, 1864.
General JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE: I have no objection to your exchanging prisoners, man for man, free negroes included. Recaptured slaves of Confederate citizens will not be exchanged.
R. E. LEE.”
O.R. Union and Confederate Armies, Series 2, Volume 7, page 1009
So is a trusty inmate at Potosi a member of the Missouri state civil service?
Slave labor is slave labor. You can pretend whatever you wish, but it does not change a slave into a soldier.
And someone who is convicted of a crime, sentenced to community service, and works sweeping the streets in front of Yankee Stadium is also not a member of the New York Yankees.
I don’t know that anyone would argue a trusty inmate at Sing Sing is a member of the New York state civil service, either.
Again, the best analogue for slave labor’s lack of agency are domesticated animals – “Black confederates” had more in common with Traveler than they did with Marse Robert.