 |
| Colored (Black) Troops |
With the recent commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, Jade and I felt we should address the topic of racism in the historical past and how it shapes historical interpretation today. As usual I will be covering mostly the American Civil War era but first I would like to step back two centuries earlier in both Europe and the English Colony of Jamestown, Virginia.
In the Europe of the 17th century, everyone who was not both white and Christian was considered inferior. This included Jews, Roma (Gypsies), Muslims, Christians who weren't of your denomination, and anyone who had a different skin color than you. This of course led to the religious wars of the era that continued in some fashion into the 20th century such as "The Troubles" of Northern Ireland. This also led to the enslavement of Black Africans to be shipped to North America because the native populations were dying off due to disease and, in some cases, overwork as slaves. As a side note, during this time it was felt that the round bullet was to be used only against other Christians. For a relatively brief period it was determined that square bullets should be used against "Infidels," primarily Muslims. Presumably this was brief as the round ball used in battle by Muslim muskets proved better than the square of the Europeans!
Crossing the Atlantic we arrive in the Jamestown, circa 1608. Actually we are stepping back to the 1990s and a family vacation there. I wish to tell a short story of an early encounter with a professional historical interpreter and how language shapes this entire post. I wish I could remember more of the tour itself, but the gentleman who led the tour was dressed and speaking as if he were in 1608 Jamestown. He explained how things worked and people lived on the island as if it were happening just that moment. What has stuck with me for over two decades is how he ended the tour. He asked all the kids if we wanted to see a magic trick. When we all said we did he did something incredible. The man walked around a tree.
When he came out from behind the tree, the interpreter was no longer in 17th century Jamestown. He began to speak to us as a modern person and explained some of the terminology he had used. Part of his language had been to call natives "Savages." He had used the term frequently. He explained that that had been how the people of Jamestown referred to the native people. He told of how he had been afraid to use that term until after he had several tour groups that included native peoples, even descendants of those who were there at the time. He asked them if they were offended by his use of the term and he was told it was ok. He even asked local tribal officials and they said the same thing, so long as he was speaking as a resident of 17th century Jamestown.
Fast forward to the Civil War era. Most natives are still considered "savages" at best by white Americans. That should come as little surprise if our readers have seen any older Western film.
What may be a surprise is how the vast majority of white America viewed ALL blacks. The North was almost as racist as the South, even the Abolitionists. With few exceptions, the Abolitionists were anti-slavery but they were not pro-black. Many wanted to liberate the slaves and then ship all blacks back to Africa to make America a nation for white people only. Many whites did not care either way before the start of the war and only came to care about slaves either as a cause of the war or a means to end it.
Northern language was not much different from Southern when it came to referring to blacks. A prime example would be General George McClellan in a letter he wrote to a Senator after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. "Help me to dodge the N......" That word, which I will not use, was extremely common in letters home from soldiers North and South, Republican and Democrat. To read primary sources one must have a thick skin.
When blacks were eventually and officially admitted into the Union army in 1863, most were organized into regiments of the United States Colored Troops or USCT. Despite wearing the identical uniform the discrimination and racism continued. At first the USCT were paid 11 dollars a month compared to a white soldier's 13. When black leaders complained in a personal interview with Lincoln, he explained that it had been a necessary concession or the bill authorizing black troops would not have passed Congress at all. In 1864 the Army was given a raise to 16 dollars a month and the pay gap was corrected. As the regiments were commanded by white officers, the black leaders complained about that too. Lincoln promised that if an officer's commission were presented to him for a black man he would sign it. Before he died, Lincoln apparently did sign at least one commission.
Blacks were also subject to the risk of enslavement if captured. The Confederate government had declared that all black soldiers would be considered slaves in an insurrection and thus be subject to those penalties. That is, if the surrendering soldier was lucky enough to survive. Many black soldiers and their white officers were shot rather than permitted to surrender. Not all, but many.
A last historical point is the term "contraband." It began just after Virginia seceded from the Union in 1861. Three slaves escaped from the Confederate fortifications they had been building and got to Fort Monroe, a Union stronghold. The next day their owner arrived and demanded their return under the terms of the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The commander, Benjamin Butler, refused. His interpretation of the situation was that Virginia had just declared herself a separate nation. If that were true, the United States had the legal authority to confiscate any property, or contraband, belonging to an enemy nation in a time of war that aided in the war effort. As these slaves were legally property, he declared them "contraband of war." No matter the status of blacks during the remainder of the war, "contraband" stuck.
Now lets move forward to the present day. Obviously we live in an age where much of the language of the era is offensive at best. The terms of "black" or "negro" or "contraband" or "colored" can be considered offensive today and yet those were the best you would get from a person in the 1860s or indeed up through much of the 20th century. Sadly "N...." was extremely common but you would never have heard the terms "African-American" or "Native American." They didn't even exist then.
So what is a living historian to do? To completely sugar coat history is just as offensive to us as using "N..." is to many others. Personally I will use the term "black" much as I have done through this post as the least offensive period phrase. This is also why I rarely "get into character" and actually portray a 19th century American. That is not to say I have not used such language as I have, normally quoting General McClellan. It is important to acknowledge the past but this is one part I do not revel in.
One may think of Civil War reenactors (or reenactors in general) as just older white guys. As we have done a post on women in the war, that is not entirely true to begin with. There are also reenactors who portray the USCT today. One outfit I personally know of is the 102nd USCT based out of the Detroit region. All black with one white officer for historical correctness, I have seen them many times at the Jackson Civil War Muster in Jackson, Michigan. Sadly I do not have any good pictures of them.
This leads to one problem unique to reenacting. Often the event is attempting to portray a specific battle. Not all battles had USCT participating. Indeed, one year at Jackson we were doing The Battle of Wilson's Creek. This engagement was a relatively minor one that occurred in 1861 in the state of Missouri. There were NO black troops in the army at that time, but the 102nd were there at Jackson and participated. This may be a problem for complete historical purists but for most events you take what you can get in terms of reenactors available.
To close this post, I feel it is important to acknowledge that some may be offended by the language used. As noted, "black" was the term chosen to be the most neutral period term. For obvious reasons the "N" word is not used here, only referenced. As language is the only way people can learn the history besides what they can see and feel, I am careful with my words in the field and here online.
-Corporal
Cooley, Sam A, photographer.
Negro Reg't i.e. Regiment at
Beaufort, S.C. Beaufort South Carolina United States, 1864.
[Place of publication not identified: Publisher not identified]
Photograph. Retrieved from the Library of Congress,
https://www.loc.gov/item/2015648184/ (Accessed April 06, 2018.)
A note regarding the photograph: This is a cropping taken from the left side of a stereoscopic picture. As in the original the troops are harder to see I zoomed in to make more visible. I also have a question regarding which regiment this is. On the Library of Congress site it says that the regiment is the 29th Regiment Connecticut volunteers. On the back of the photograph it is handwritten that it was the 1st South Carolina Regiment (Colored). Without doing more research than I'm capable of doing, I could not tell you which is correct. As I've heard that all Southern states contributed troops to the Union Army with the exception of South Carolina, I am inclined to believe the Connecticut. Sadly, I can not be sure and thus present this for your own interpretation
