Racial Politics within the Union Army during the Civil War - Term Paper Example

The Black Soldier in the Civil War: A Dubious Honor? "Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S., let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship." Frederick Douglass At the time of the Civil War Black military recruitment in the United States had been banned based on a law dating back to 1792. Despite exhortations by important black leaders including Douglass, and efforts over previous years to pass resolutions permitting enlistment, elements within the society, particularly in the political and military realms, held fast against it. While Lincoln toyed at first with the idea of permitting black recruitment during the Civil War, he knew it would not set well with many of his military commanders and some politicians as well. By 1862, however, white enlistment was on the wane, savage battles had taken an enormous human toll. Lincoln and everyone knew it would take a significant influx of new fighters for the conflict to be won, and in 1862 he introduced the Emancipation Proclamation that would lead to the opening of the floodgates to black recruitment. Blacks were now allowed the “privilege” of serving, a privilege that uncovered racist proclivities in the military that remained in tact through World War II, the most prominent of which, the segregation of blacks into their own units, a topic that will be more fully discussed later. While many blacks laid down their lives in the interests of patriotism and freedom from slavery, their sacrifices in many cases were met with racism within the very military they had joined to oppose it. Degradation at the Outset Many who enlisted were former black slaves, and in order to be accepted as recruits were required to provide written proof that his owner had offered him for enlistment, or a signed manumission document 1, a demeaning process at best. Although the slave would be subjected to all the horrors of war, perhaps giving his life for a country which could not, at the time, make up its mind whether it even wanted “coloreds” to be equal, the “deal” of manumission seemed convenient for not only military recruiting purposes, but profitable for the slave-owner him or herself, who, in “sacrificing” the slave, was duly and substantially compensated. In order to encourage the borderline slave states to give over their slaves to the cause, an order was given in 1863 that essentially allowed anyone who gave up their slave to military service, and showed proof of ownership, to be awarded a certificate allowing them to receive compensation in the amount of about $300. All else required was a sworn statement that the owner was loyal to the government. The entire process reeked of barter between two parties with little interest in the life or fortunes of the object bartered. Though the process offered emancipation, it came with the implicit risk of death—a second-hand bargain at best for slaves. Southern Response: When is a Soldier, Not a Soldier Response from the South, upon learning that blacks would be allowed to enlist, was harsh and predicable considering its attitude toward blacks as property and their well documented abuse by owners throughout history. Letters exchanged between Union and Confederate officers in 1864 are shocking examples of the worst racial prejudice that belies the accepted military codes relevant to captured fighters. 1. Thomas H. Benton and Elizabeth Benton, Signed “Manumission” Document, (Virginia:November 4, 1835), http://www.randallhouserarebooks.com/indbooks/benton.html When a Southern officer declares that a captured “negro” prisoner will be returned to his owner or “held to slavery.”2, a Union officer, Lt. Colonel McCabe responds, “...when the government of the United States made negroes, soldiers, it assumed towards them the same obligations that were due to any others who might wear its uniform or bear its flag.”3 In a politely worded yet unmistakably forceful response, McCabe further warns the officer that should the negro be held to slavery as threatened, a Confederate prisoner, in retaliation, would be placed in the same situation. “...for every black soldier reduced to slavery [there will be] a rebel soldier put in like condition.”4 Clearly, then, among Union officers it appears a commitment, no matter what their personal opinions regarding blacks in the military, to maintain a strict military code of ethics was securely in place and in practice. The most significant event highlighting the southern response to the use of black soldiers by the north came in the form of the notorious Pillow Creek massacre in which both black and white Union troops were murdered by confederates on the order of General Nathan Forrest, a fanatical leader who considered black soldiers “homemade Yankees...a slave in uniform with a gun and a direct challenge and threat to the way of life in the South, a situation that could never be tolerated.” 5 An eye witness account describes the savagery: One of them soon came to where I was laying [sic] with one of "Co C" boys. He pulled out his revolver and shot the soldier right in the head [,]scattering the blood & brains in my face & then putting his revolver 2. National Archives and Records Administration Compiled Service Records, Records of the Adjutant Generals Office, 1780s-1917, (Washington, D.C.: RG 94), 1-2 http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/black-pows.html 3. Ibid, 1 4. Ibid, 2 5. James D. Lockett, “The Lynching Massacre of Black and White Soldiers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee April 12 1864”, The Western Journal of Black Studies. 22:2 (1998), 84, www.questia.com right against my breast he said [,] "Youll fight with the niggers again will you? You d—d yankee..."6 Inside the Union Army: A Life Apart Not surprising, despite their loyal service to the Union and the abolitionist life for black soldiers within the Union ranks was often unequal and subject to a variety of indignities. “We are not fit for anything but to do all the picket duty and drudgery work on the island; and we dont get our rations as we ought to. All the rations that are condemned by the white troops are sent to our regiment.” 7 Other complaints added to tensions. While some blacks acted as cooks and performed other non-battle duties, the pay rate did increase to reflect their new duties as fighting men after the Emancipation Proclamation freed them to do so. “The black soldiers pay of seven dollars plus a three-dollar clothing allowance per month (compared to the white soldiers 13 dollars including the clothing allowance) added to tension and became a major bone of contention throughout the conflict.” 8 It must be noted that many officers, fair and just men as it would appear, were opposed to such unequal treatment and were not reluctant to voice their concern. Wilson quotes Corporal James Henry Gooding: Ten dollars by the greatest government in the world is an unjust distinction to men who have only a black skin to merit it. To put the matter on the ground that we are not soldiers would be simply absurd, in the face of the existing facts. A soldiers pay is $13 per month, and Congress has nothing to do but acknowledge that we are such. It needs no further legislation. To say even, we were not soldiers and pay us $20 would be an injustice, for it would rob a whole race of their title to manhood. 9 The issue not only affected the specific problem for blacks of unequal pay, but protest 6. George Bodnia, “Fort Pillow Massacre: Observations of a Minnesotan”, Minnesota Historical Society: MHS Collections: Minnesota History, 187. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/43/v43i05p186-190.pdf 7. Keith P. Wilson, Campfires of Freedom: The Camp Life of Black Soldiers during the Civil War. 2: A Matter of Principle: Decent in the Camp, Ohio: Kent State University Press (2002) 38 8. BBC Home (Web Site), “Life as a Union Black Soldier During the United States Civil War: The Search for Equality, (10 November 2006) para. 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A15847644 9. ibid, para. 2 against the injustice had far reaching affect beyond the collection of the monthly paycheck to the very political and social organization of blacks within the camp. Wilson writes: Legally, soldiers who refused to accept their pay could be prosecuted for inciting mutiny. Nevertheless, in a few regiments abolitionist officers tolerated this form of protest....In some camps opposition to the inequitable pay was personal as individual soldiers were moved to act on their anger. In contrast, in other camps well-organized resistance campaigns developed. This was particularly the case where substantial numbers of troops refused to accept inferior wages. In these camps, it was the influential noncommissioned officers who organized the resistance. This task required them to develop legitimate and effective protest movements that steered between mutiny and factionalism within the ranks. Noncommissioned officers employed a variety of strategies against inequitable pay. Foremost was the maintenance of peer-group unity. A “Close Observer” from the 32d USCI proudly proclaimed in August 1864 that “there were but few to pay [i.e., to be paid] the pay rolls and those who did a great many of us tried to influence to the contrary.” Such was the strength of peer-group pressure in this camp that soldiers who wanted to accept their pay “sneaked up at night and signed the pay roll.” 10 It is interesting to note that of the nineteen soldiers prosecuted for mutiny during the war, fourteen were black. The imbalance of this statistic is obvious when considering that the war was half over by the time blacks were allowed into the military, and that the executions, in the main, centered upon mutinies related to unequal pay. The irony in the fact that blacks would so challenge the very authority designed to end slavery should not be ignored, a tendency that would protract well into the 20th Century in the form of the civil rights movements and race rioting of the 60s. No doubt black soldiers in the Union Army faced a myriad of racial prejudice in the form of segregation and discriminatory practices other than unequal pay, although it should be duly noted that in 1864 Congress granted equal pay to the U.S. Colored Troops and made the action retroactive. Racial discrimination was prevalent even in the North, and there is no reason to believe these attitudes would not find their way into the military. Segregated units 10. Wilson, Ibid, p. 51 were formed with black enlisted men and were typically commanded by white officers and a few black noncommissioned officers—a situation replete with the inherent notion that blacks were not capable of leadership. Only one hundred of the nearly 200,000 who served gained commissions during the war. Black soldiers at the beginning, at least, received sub-standard rations and medical care as compared to whites, a situation, however, that improved over time. At the beginning of black enlistment, it was assumed that blacks would be kept out of direct combat, and the men were paid as laborers rather than as soldiers on the scale previously mentioned-- $7 per month, plus a $3 clothing allowance, while white soldiers received $13 per month, plus $3.50 for clothes. That those situations were either rectified or improved over time points to a level of commitment by the North, its politicians and the military to properly treat its black recruits. Wilson writes: Until mid-1863, officers were appointed to black regiments by military commanders and politicians, who developed ad hoc selection procedures to suit regional conditions. Though there was considerable variation, one overriding conviction dominated the officer-selection process: commissions were given most frequently to those who could demonstrate a strong commitment to the antislavery cause. This pattern was epitomized by the policy of one of the strongest advocates of black troops, Governor Andrew, who declared that he wanted to appoint to the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers young men with “military experience” and “firm anti-slavery principles ... superior to the vulgar contempt of color, and having faith in the capacity of colored men for military service.” However, by mid-1863 the situation had radically changed. Adjutant General Thomass extensive recruitment campaign in the Mississippi Valley in April 1863 and the creation of the Bureau of Colored Troops in May 1863 had moved black enlistment into the mainstream of the federal government’s recruitment policy. 11 Evidence of substandard medical treatment appears in information pertaining to haphazard medical examinations given to black recruits upon their application of entry into 11. Ibid, 2-3 military service, a situation attributed to a shortage of doctors. Examinations were haphazard and performed by unqualified individuals. “As might have been expected, this system admitted men with all sorts of disabilities.”12 A pension deposition some thirty years later makes the point. “I got stiff sometimes and the veins in my legs began to puff up some but I could get around as well as any of them...” 13 Many influential physicians of the time also held a prejudicial attitude toward black soldiers in their belief that blacks, lacking in intellectual and moral fortitude because of their race, were somehow more susceptible to disease. Extrapolated, the assumption can be made that since many officers shared this belief, black soldiers, in all likelihood, were not given equal treatment to white soldiers with similar injuries or conditions. Yet despite the many prejudices and limitations placed upon them, black forces are historically noted for their efficiency and bravery in the field. Although prejudice kept them from being used in combat as extensively as they might have been, many units served with distinction in battles including Millikens Bend, LA; Port Hudson, LA; Petersburg, VA; and Nashville, TN. In the battle of Fort Wagner, South Carolina, C, the famed 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers lost two-thirds of their officers and half of their troops—an action earning several the nation’s highest military award for their valor—the Medal of Honor. While as stated, black troops were not used as extensively as white troops in strategic situations, a interesting and disturbing event perhaps highlights the covert racism that may have caused an entire regiment of black soldiers to be thrown to be sacrificed at the Battle of the Crater, where thousands of black troops were slaughtered after being ordered to charge into a crater where thousands of Union soldiers had already been killed. 12. William A. Dobak and Thomas D. Phillips, The Black Regulars 1866-1898. 1943. Copyright 2001. University of Oklahoma Press, 7. 13. Ibid, 7 Stereotyping of blacks based on preconceived notions also existed. An interesting example is found in Campfires of Freedom where Wilson discusses 1st South Carolina Colored Volunteers Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson’s perception of black soldiers as childlike and amiable which appeared in an article of day in Army Life. To learn drill, one does not want a set of college professors; one wants a squad of eager, active, pliant school-boys; and the more childlike these pupils are the better. There is no trouble about the drill; they will surpass whites in that. As to camp life, they have little to sacrifice; they are better fed, housed, and clothed than ever in their lives before, and they appear to have few inconvenient vices. They are simple, docile, and affectionate almost to the point of absurdity.14 Post War Era: Pragmatic Decisions and Political Expediency Life for soldiers, black and white, after the war was not easy. As expected, many whites had left jobs for the army. Some had jobs to return to upon leaving, others not. For black soldiers and former slaves the path to economic stability was difficult. Many chose to remain in the army in segregated units as a career. Charges were often leveled by both the soldiers and their white officers that the black regiments were given the worst assignments, and least desirous assignments. Yet, in fairness to the military and its response, some officers suggested that outposts in Texas should not be purely manned by black regiments and that regiments should take turns at posts in more civilized areas. 15 “Black soldiers first entered the regular army of the United States in the summer of 1866. While their segregated regiments served in the American West for the next three decades, the promise of the Reconstruction era gave way to the repressiveness of Jim Crow. But black men found a degree of equality in the service: the army treated them no worse than 14. Wilson, Campfires, 16 15. Ibid, 94 (para 1/post war conclusion) it did their white counterparts.”16 For those who chose to leave it, “the discipline and sense ofresponsibility that some black workers gained from the army impressed potential employers and helped veterans enjoy greater success in the marketplace.”17 At the end of the war the army reorganized and authorized the formation of two regiments of black cavalry: 9th and 10th U. S. Cavalry, along with two infantry regiments, commanded, as always, by white officers. From 1866 to the early-1890s these regiments indeed served at posts in the southwest and Great Plains regions, never the most desirable mainly because of fierce Indian fighting. Yet units served with distinction. Buffalo Soldiers, as they were called, did everything from building roads to delivering the mail. Generally, t then, it might be said that the army offered black men better opportunities than did civilian life. Despite the military’s struggles with a degree of ongoing racism, black soldiers were probably, given questions over land and how much should be given over to former slaves, better off remaining in service. In the aftermath of the war, while contract labor system addressed the problem of land for former slaves, the amount of land available to satisfy requirements was insufficient and at times subject to reclamation by former owners. Over time, the system evolved into the notorious sharecropping system that kept thousands of freed slaves well into the 20th century living in virtual poverty, while providing landowners with low paid workers to till the soil—a situation akin to former slavery. From the political standpoint, justice for freed blacks was a continual struggle between the southern states and the federal government. Black codes passed by southern Legislatures suppressed blacks in subtle ways, including the distribution of military pensions. In a study done on Prejudice and Policy, Wilson found: 16. Ibid, 93 17. Ibid, 27 The Union Army disability pension was an early experiment in colorblind social policy. However, it shortchanged Blacks in two ways. First, the law was unable to account for the challenges Blacks faced in proving their eligibility because of the legacy of slavery and discrimination against Black troops during the Civil War. Second, the increasing leniency accorded White soldiers by the Pension Bureau was not extended in the same measure to Blacks. Active discrimination against Blacks resulted in part from local discretion, evidenced by the significantly lower approval rates for both White and Black veterans in the South. Furthermore, when Whites and Blacks claimed disabilities that were easily verifiable, outcomes were similar, but when verification required a degree of trust, Blacks fared considerably worse than Whites. 18 Former slaves/soldiers were required to receive a pension documents they did not always have--birth certificates, military papers and hospital records, the latter of which were especially difficult since during the way, blacks were treated in hospitals at much lower rates. “The Union Army had a hard time staffing the hospitals of black regiments, so ailing black soldiers were not sent to the hospital as often as white soldiers...they didn’t have a paper trail of illness or injury. As a result...An enrollment gap emerged, with wounded white veterans getting pensions at twice the rate of wounded black vets.”19 Conclusion It is a well known fact that President Lincoln was not particularly supportive of ending slavery or of black participation in the military. The decision was ultimately pragmatic and political. He needed abolition to justify the conflict, and in time also realized he needed blacks to engorge the ranks of the military—fighting fodder, as it were. Romantic patriotic notions aside, this is the reality that must be faced in any discussion of blacks in the military during the civil war. However, least the issue becomes to focused on political expediency, it is important not to forget what was done by black soldiers both in the name of patriotism, freedom and the hope of one day achieving full citizenship. It is also important to sense what was gained in terms of black historical achievement. 18 Sven E. Wilson, “Prejudice and Policy: Racial Discrimination in the Union Army, 1865-1906, American Journal of Public Health, 10.2105/AJPH.2009.172759., published online ahead of print Feb 10, 2010: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2009.172759v1 19. “Racial Discrimination in Union Army Detailed by New Study,” Salt Lake Tribune, quoting Sven E. Wilson, News Release: http://news.byu.edu/archive10-feb-unionarmy.aspx By the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Nearly 40,000 black soldiers died over the course of the war—30,000 of infection or disease. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. There were nearly 80 black commissioned officers. Black women, who could not formally join the Army, nonetheless served as nurses, spies, and scouts, the most famous being Harriet Tubman, who scouted for the 2d South Carolina Volunteers.20 There was no doubt that racial prejudice, institutionalized or otherwise, was present in the military and that it affected many decisions concerning black soldiers. Yet it must be said that it is difficult to find a primary source that indicates there were racial problems within the camps themselves. Apparently the strife of the war and camp life in general was a great equalizer among the men, and unless privately various white soldiers expressed their abhorrence for their black counterparts, there is little evidence of personal animosity documented. It is also clear that while the military establishment itself enforced certain prejudicial practices, it is similarly evident that the political structure, namely the government did address issues in the main. Yet no special land grants or other signs of appreciation were given to black soldiers that were not offered to former slaves who did not serve. No jobs were set aside. Yet the very decision that allowed blacks to join the service constituted a giant step forward in African-American strides toward progress from slavery to freedom in a post-war society relying on law and order, and an army, now populated by black soldiers, charged with maintaining them. To a great extent, then, the military, despite racist practices, gave the black man what 20. Budge Weidman, Teaching With Documents, “The Fight for Equal Rights,” 1999, Para. 4, The National Archives Website. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/ no other institution in the country had been able to give to that point: freedom and an opportunity to succeed on a level with whites. Cashin quoting Grierson writes: Always in the vanguard of civilization and in contact with the most warlike and savage Indians of the Plains, the officers and men have cheerfully endured many hardships and privations in the midst of great dangers steadfastly maintained a most gallant and zealous devotion to duty, and they may well be proud of the record made, and rest assured that the hard work undergone in the accomplishment of such important and valuable service to their country is well understood and appreciated, and that it cannot fail, sooner or later, to meet with due recognition and reward.21 21. Herschel V. Cashin and Others, “Under Fire with the Tenth U.S. Cavalry,” Arno and New York Times, 1969, 25. http://debate.uvm.edu/dreadlibrary/mullin.html Bibliography BBC Home (Web Site). “Life as a Union Black Soldier During the United States Civil War,” (10 November 2006). http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A15847644 Benton, Thomas H. and Elizabeth Benton. Signed “Manumission” Document. Virginia: November 4, 1835. http://www.randallhouserarebooks.com/indbooks/benton.html Bodnia, George (ed). “Fort Pillow Massacre: Observations of a Minnesotan.” Minnesota Historical Society, MHS Collections: Minnesota History. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/43/v43i05p186-190.pdf Cashin, Herschel V. and Others. “Under Fire with the Tenth U.S. Cavalry.” Arno and New York Times, 1969. http://debate.uvm.edu/dreadlibrary/mullin.html Dobak, William A. and Thomas D. Phillip. The Black Regulars 1866-1898, 1943. Copyright 2001. University of Oklahoma Press. Lockett, James D. “The Lynching Massacre of Black and White Soldiers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee April 12, 1864.” The Western Journal of Black Studies. 22. no. 2 (1998): 84+. www.questia.com National Archives and Records Administration Compiled Service Records. Records of the Adjutant Generals Office, 1780s-1917. Washington, D.C.: RG 94, 1864. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from Web Site: “Teaching With Documents: The Fight for Equal Rights: Black Soldiers in the Civil War.” http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/black-pows.html “Racial Discrimination in Union Army Detailed by New Study,” Salt Lake Tribune, News Release: http://news.byu.edu/archive10-feb-unionarmy.aspx Weidman, Budge. “The Fight for Equal Rights:” (1999) The National Archives Website: Teaching with Documents. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks- civil-war/ Wilson, Keith P. Campfires of Freedom: The Camp Life of Black Soldiers During the Civil War. Ohio: Kent State University Press (2002). Sven E. Wilson. “Prejudice and Policy: Racial Discrimination in the Union Army, 1865- 1906, American Journal of Public Health, 10.2105/AJPH.2009.172759., published online ahead of print Feb 10, 2010: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2009.172759v1 Endnotes 1. Thomas H. Benton and Elizabeth Benton, Signed “Manumission” Document, (Virginia:November 4, 1835), http://www.randallhouserarebooks.com/indbooks/benton.html 2. National Archives and Records Administration Compiled Service Records, Records of the Adjutant Generals Office, 1780s-1917, (Washington, D.C.: RG 94), 1-2 http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/black-pows.html 3. Ibid, 1 4. Ibid, 2 5. James D. Lockett, “The Lynching Massacre of Black and White Soldiers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee April 12 1864”, The Western Journal of Black Studies. 22:2 (1998), 84, www.questia.com 6. George Bodnia, “Fort Pillow Massacre: Observations of a Minnesotan”, Minnesota Historical Society: MHS Collections: Minnesota History, 187. http://collections.mnhs.org/MNHistoryMagazine/articles/43/v43i05p186-190.pdf 7. Keith P. Wilson, Campfires of Freedom: The Camp Life of Black Soldiers during the Civil War. 2: A Matter of Principle: Decent in the Camp, Ohio: Kent State University Press (2002) 38 8. BBC Home (Web Site), “Life as a Union Black Soldier During the United States Civil War: The Search for Equality, (10 November 2006) para. 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A15847644 9. ibid, para. 2 10. Wilson, Ibid, p. 51 11. Ibid, 2-3 12. William A. Dobak and Thomas D. Phillips, The Black Regulars 1866-1898. 1943. Copyright 2001. University of Oklahoma Press, 7. 13. Ibid, 7 14. Wilson, Campfires, 16 15. Ibid, 94 (para 1/post war conclusion) 16. Ibid, 93 17. Ibid, 271 18 Sven E. Wilson, “Prejudice and Policy: Racial Discrimination in the Union Army, 1865-1906, American Journal of Public Health, 10.2105/AJPH.2009.172759., published online ahead of print Feb 10, 2010: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2009.172759v1 19. “Racial Discrimination in Union Army Detailed by New Study,” Salt Lake Tribune, quoting Sven E. Wilson, News Release: http://news.byu.edu/archive10-feb-unionarmy.aspx 20. Budge Weidman, Teaching With Documents, “The Fight for Equal Rights,” 1999, Para. 4, The National Archives Website. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/ 21. Herschel V. Cashin and Others, “Under Fire with the Tenth U.S. Cavalry,” Arno and New York Times, 1969, 25. http://debate.uvm.edu/dreadlibrary/mullin.html Read More