CSA African Troops

[Tank Cdr]

I read an alternate history story recently called "The Black and the Gray". It was a good story, but I found the leap just too far for me to make. If you have never read the story, it deals with the publishing of General Patrick Cleburne's document calling for the freeing of the slaves and those freed slaves allowed to enlist in the Confederate armies. However, I just cannot see the story the way the author presented it, with fully integrated units fighting victoriously together. As I thought about it, should such a measure be approved to allow the enlistment of blacks into the Confederate Army, I was thinking that they be used in support roles, prison guards, and as garrison troops. The idea being to free up white troops for front line duty. There are a lot of smart people here, so I would like your feedback. This is my first thread so don't berate me too badly!

[kirrix]

There was a small number of African Americans who served in the CS Army, and were actually treated comparatively better than their northern counterparts (as equals of the white soldiers). The CS also had a militia (1st Louisiana Native Guard) that was all black, thus having black officers (the first in the whole of North America).

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Tank Cdr

I was thinking that they be used in support roles, prison guards, and as garrison troops.

Already happened. The Confederate Quartermaster Corps was almost all black enlisted men with white officers, and they don't show up on rolls, making comparisons between Federal and Confederate Armies difficult. The "3,000 negros" who served with Jackson's wing in Maryland were certainly quartermasters troops.

The question is the degree to which they served in combat roles. Certainly they did (for example, a battery of the Richmond Howitzers was black, and had been since before the war), but how much?

[Tobit]

Originally Posted by kirrix

There was a small number of African Americans who served in the CS Army, and were actually treated comparatively better than their northern counterparts (as equals of the white soldiers). The CS also had a militia (1st Louisiana Native Guard) that was all black, thus having black officers (the first in the whole of North America).

I think maybe the first in all of English speaking North America. But the Spaniards had formed all black Militias as early as the 1500's.

As I thought about it, should such a measure be approved to allow the enlistment of blacks into the Confederate Army, I was thinking that they be used in support roles, prison guards, and as garrison troops. The idea being to free up white troops for front line duty.

Actually the slave holding aristocracy might be more comfortable if the black regiments were put on the frontline. Especially if they are put in most dangerous commands or given essentially suicidal missions. It is much easier to promise freedom for blacks if there is only a 20% survival rate in their respective units.

This was what occurred in the Argentinian army, Afro-argentinians formed a disproportionate part of their military and subsequently Argentina is less mulato then it was when it first formed.

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Originally Posted by Tobit

This was what occurred in the Argentinian army, Afro-argentinians formed a disproportionate part of their military and subsequently Argentina is less mulato then it was when it first formed.

Another good parallel would be the Brazilian Army during the War of the Triple Alliance, which started during the American Civil War and Brazil was also still a slave-holding nation at the time. They would send the black regiments up forward into danger more often than white units, and I even heard that they would often fire artillery into their own formations when they were in close combat with the Paraguayans.

[Snowstalker]

I wonder if the CSA would be interested in colonies...

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Tank Cdr

However, I just cannot see the story the way the author presented it, with fully integrated units fighting victoriously together. As I thought about it, should such a measure be approved to allow the enlistment of blacks into the Confederate Army, I was thinking that they be used in support roles, prison guards, and as garrison troops. The idea being to free up white troops for front line duty.

Well, if you are referring to my timeline called The Black and the Gray, the Confederacy planned, in OTL, to use the black recruits to fill out the ranks of the existing white units. So it's not a case of "the author presenting it that way"...this is how they would have been used in reality, had the plan had time to be fully implemented.

As for using them in support roles, the Confederacy already had somewhere between 30,000 and 90,000 blacks in the ranks of the army performing support roles before the black recruitment laws were passed. There was not much more that could have been done to increase white manpower by using more blacks in support roles. The need was more more combat troops.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Tobit

Actually the slave holding aristocracy might be more comfortable if the black regiments were put on the frontline. Especially if they are put in most dangerous commands or given essentially suicidal missions. It is much easier to promise freedom for blacks if there is only a 20% survival rate in their respective units.

The problem with that scenario is that they weren't going to form black regiments. General Order No. 14 specified that no black regiments were going to be formed, and no black unit above company strength was to be formed. So the scenario you describe just doesn't work. It was easy for the Union to use their black troops as cannon fodder because they were in segregated units. That wouldn't have been the case in the Confederate army. The intention on the Confederate side was always to use the black recruits to fill out the strength of existing white regiments and for the units to fight as integrated units.

[Tank Cdr]

Robertp, It was not my intention to insult you, or your work. I was just offering my views on the subject. Clearly you have researched this more than I have. Thanks to you and everyone else for the knowledge and the feedback!

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Tank Cdr

Robertp, It was not my intention to insult you, or your work. I was just offering my views on the subject. Clearly you have researched this more than I have. Thanks to you and everyone else for the knowledge and the feedback!

No insult was taken.

[Admiral Matt]

I enjoyed the time line, but have always had reservations about its core premise. I've no doubt it's possible that the Confederacy's program would have looked much as shown if it raised black troops at the time suggested. I just don't believe it could have when it does in The Black and the Gray.

The argument is that Lee's suggestion was necessary for the process to begin, and that the only necessary change would be for him to suggest it earlier. The trouble I have with that was that in OTL it was essentially an act of desperation. The war was almost completely lost, very unlike the situation a year before.

Compare it to the Nazis sending the Hitler Jugend to the front as the Soviets reached Berlin. What if they'd had the same manpower before Kursk? The answer's simple: they wouldn't have mobilized the Hitler Jugend then, because you don't resort to the last minute risk, the one that strikes straight at the basics of your society, until the last minute.

ps - I feel like I should use a non-Nazi comparison, but for the life of me I can't think of one just now.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Admiral Matt

I enjoyed the time line, but have always had reservations about its core premise. I've no doubt it's possible that the Confederacy's program would have looked much as shown if it raised black troops at the time suggested. I just don't believe it could have when it does in The Black and the Gray.

The argument is that Lee's suggestion was necessary for the process to begin, and that the only necessary change would be for him to suggest it earlier. The trouble I have with that was that in OTL it was essentially an act of desperation. The war was almost completely lost, very unlike the situation a year before.

Compare it to the Nazis sending the Hitler Jugend to the front as the Soviets reached Berlin. What if they'd had the same manpower before Kursk? The answer's simple: they wouldn't have mobilized the Hitler Jugend then, because you don't resort to the last minute risk, the one that strikes straight at the basics of your society, until the last minute.

ps - I feel like I should use a non-Nazi comparison, but for the life of me I can't think of one just now.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you (although Robert E. Lee's stature within the Confederacy was such that if he had thrown himself wholeheartedly behind the proposal in February 1864, it might well have given the proposal a chance of passage). But the point of the timeline wasn't really to suggest that the prompt adoption of the Cleburne Memorial in early 1864 was a likely occurrence, but rather to examine the possible consequences if it HAD happened. Therefore all the arguments various people have made about the plausibility of the POD are beside the point.