It is truly an honor to speak at the flagship institution in my home state.
Twenty-first century concepts of liberty, freedom, citizenship, and civil rights are
inextricably linked to the struggle for Union during the American Civil War.
The conflict, which spanned four years, fundamentally redefined what it meant to be an American.
And in doing so, moved the country closer to those self-evident truths that are embedded
in the Declaration of Independence.
Prior to 1861, more than four million African Americans were held in bondage and enjoyed
few rights that white men were bound to respect.
By the end of the war the institution of slavery was dead, black men had served militarily,
and African Americans were on the path to becoming citizens of the United States of
America.
The emancipation of the nation's enslaved population and the social ascension of African
Americans, especially black men that followed, represented the greatest social shift in the
history of the world.
As such, the African American Experience is at the heart of the story of the Civil War.
This evening I am going to talk to you a little bit about my research.
My research focuses on black military service, free labor, and education right here in this
state during the Civil War.
My dissertation, which I recently defended, began as a project that I completed for a
summer internship I had at the Missouri archives.
And at that time I was tasked with creating a narrative of black military participation
during the war, and towards this end I was given access to any and every document that
the archives had in its possession.
And while I was able to create a very detailed regimental history of the six official black
regiments from this state, I started to realize that there was a yet untold story about the
African American experience, and the African American response to the Civil War.
And it was sitting right in front of me.
Now, the first red flag that stood out to me were the numbers.
(Where are the number?
Here we go.)
According to official records a total of 8,344 African American men served in federal regiments
during the war.
Now, that number sounds significant, but when we compare that to the number of African Americans
living in Missouri in 1860-about 115,000-that number only represents about 10% of the population
that served militarily during the war.
That's only 39% that 8,344 number only represents 39% of the total male black population of
fighting age.
Now, at the outset of the war, when they started enlisting African American men, military officials
here in Missouri in early December of 1863, estimated that at least 20,000 enslaved men
in this state could be enlisted and recruited into the Union army-more than double that
actually served.
So what happened to the other 61%?
Well, what this meant was that the vast majority of black men in Missouri, in essence, rejected
military service during the Civil War.
Usually they did this in favor of other options, most notably, wage-labor.
Now, this was something that I really had not anticipated, and Civil War scholarship,
black men's enlistment and active participation in the war effort, has been prioritized and
connected directly to abolitionism.
Black soldiers, struggling to assert their humanity and their patriotism, have been generally
venerated as stable warriors of what Abraham Lincoln called "a new birth of freedom."
They were, supposedly men who enlisted to destroy slavery, emancipate the race, and
save the Union.
This what early and modern narratives of black participation in the war outlined.
This was the story that they told.
Now, early books on black participation in the Civil War were written, really, as laudatory
treatises that extoled the virtue and heroism of black soldiers.
All, directly and indirectly, connected black military service with a selfless desire to
destroy slavery in America.
Later books have followed the same course.
But yet, as we will discuss this evening, the singular focus of black men being the
central figures in a conquering abolitionist narrative, fails to fully unpack the various
reasons why black men elected to fight for a nation that had previously sanctioned their
enslavement.
Black men's decision to…..
(Oops I just dropped my water bottle... that's not good…hopefully I won't slip).
Black men's decision to serve militarily in Missouri, and elsewhere, was not simply
rooted in a desire to destroy slavery as a whole.
But it was in fact more nuanced.
While notions of self-sacrifice and collective emancipation- a notion of the emancipation
of the entire race-encouraged some black men to join federal regiments, the vast majority
of black Missourians, like their white counterparts, based their decisions on their immediate needs
and the needs of their family-the need for food, shelter, and clothing.
Black men whose families suffered intensely because of wartime depravity and lack of resources
did not have the luxury to be guided by aspiration or ideology.
Instead, their decisions were directly linked to the conditions of themselves and their
families.
The fact that, some black decided to work, not to enlist, does not negate their genuine
desire to see slavery abolished in America.
Their decisions and their actions, however, reflected a measure of their newly found autonomy
as well as the very real conditions that black families faced during the war.
The slow, and painful, and disorderly death of slavery in Missouri led to unprecedented
suffering amongst the state's African American population.
And thus, when the Union army opened the ranks to black men, most recruits had either been
recently enslaved or were in poor financial shape with limited job opportunities.
In other words, these men were extremely desperate.
The lofty goals of destroying slavery in America and securing black citizenship were an afterthought
for men whose families were starving and dying, quite literally in front of their eyes.
Now, I really think it's appropriate to provide a little bit more context to the African
American experience in the Civil War.
Briefly outlining these ideas, revolving ideas regarding slavery, the aims of the war, and
the unique conditions that black Missourians found themselves in, is truly helpful in understanding
why black men responded in the manner that they did.
When the Civil War began in April of 1861, enslaved Missourians here in Missouri, and
their counterparts elsewhere, watched the conflict closely hoping that the war would
bring about slavery's demise.
Initially, there was very little evidence that this would occur.
Some Union politicians and military officials fervently denied that this was a war to end
slavery.
In July of 1861, Congress articulated this notion by passing something known as the Crittenden-Johnson
Resolution-named for co-sponsors, Representative John Crittenden of Kentucky, and future vice
president and President Andrew Johnson of Tennessee.
The Resolution stated, "this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression,
nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering
with the rights or established institution of those States [slavery], but to defend and
maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all dignity,
equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects
are accomplished the war ought to cease."
Now, although this position mirrored that of the Lincoln administration, other Union
politicians in Congress and some military officials, had really no reservations about
interfering with slavery, as long as it advanced the aim of the Union and helped to bring the
South back into the national fold.
In the summer of 1861, small fissures in the institution of slavery began to manifest.
One the first developments occurred in Virginia, a little over a month after the war stared.
Soon after he assumed command of Fort Monroe in Virginia- this guy here-in May of 1861
Major General Benjamin Butler began to label runaway slaves who were seeking security or
shelter behind Union lines as contrabands of war.
Now, the term contraband in the time of war referred to property that gave some benefit
to the opposing side, and according to the rules of war, it was something that could
be legally seized.
Now, Butler reasoned that enslaved people, who were considered property, provided a material
benefit to their owners by virtue of their labor and their presence.
Enslaved people could cook meals, they could sew clothes, and they could build fortifications,
and attend to army officers.
And since Virginia was one of those states that had seceded and left the Union and joined
the Confederacy, Butler believed his actions to be both justified and legal.
Now, Butler's contraband designation began to alter the direction and the meaning of
the war, and emboldened slave men and women to seek shelter behind Union lines.
But let me be very clear about Butler's actions.
At this point in the war, Butler's contraband designation represented a change in strategy,
rather than an attempt to extinguish slavery in America.
Confiscation at this time served a very practical purpose, as it not only allowed Union forces
to seize or appropriate black men for work, but it also deprived the Confederacy of its
primary labor force.
But, nonetheless, Butler's novel interpretation of the Constitution and wartime powers, led
Union officials to eventually adopt and formalize this policy throughout the army.
This directly resulted in the passage of a law known as the First Confiscation Act.
This happens in August of 1861.
But the First Confiscation Act, as many of us might know, does not abolish slavery, and
the First Confiscation Act says nothing about freeing those slaves who had been confiscated.
But it does, however, provide a small opening for some enslaved people to secure Union protection
from their masters.
In Missouri, in the first months of the war, a closely related but unique set of circumstances
began to undermine the institution of slavery here in the home state, of myself.
In mid-July of 1861, Brigadier General John Pope, commanding official of the district
of Northeastern Missouri, issued threats to local citizens who stood idling by as guerillas
wreaked havoc in the area.
When local citizens failed to act, Pope threatened to begin seizing property, including property
in slaves.
He hoped that his policy would have the dual effect of breaking up these rolling bands,
of marauders as he called them, and turning the community against them-who he believed
sheltered them at this time.
Pope's threat, or general orders Number Three as he called it, was effective and it
temporally stopped the guerrilla violence that was plaguing northeastern Missouri.
But although northeastern Missouri was for the time being somewhat free of guerrilla
warfare, the rest of the state was becoming quickly a tinderbox.
As a result of the monic support for the Confederacy central and southern Missouri began a quick
descent into chaos and open war.
With the significant victory at the Battle of Wilson's Creek on August 10th of 1861,
and threats to Rolla, Ironton, Potosi and other areas, Union officials became desperate
because of the Confederacies growing presence in Missouri.
Now, where the effectiveness of Pope's policy in the northeastern part of the state, Major
General John C. Fremont, head of Union operations in Missouri, implemented his own extreme measures
to slow the Confederate advances in Missouri.
On August 30th of 1861, Fremont proclaimed martial law in Missouri, and declared that
anyone taking up arms against the Union would be executed.
Further, and more importantly for this discussion, Fremont's declaration also intended and
included a clause that emancipated the slaves of actively disloyal Missourians.
Fremont's emancipation proclamation, as it has been referred to, was issued in the
same vein as Pope's orders the previous month, and it really served as a very heavy-
handed approach to restore order in a state that was quickly spiraling out of control.
Fremont's proclamations, as you could imagine, sent shock waves throughout the state.
And it really was not just because of the draconian punishment outlined for Confederate
supporters but because of this threat to the institution of slavery.
As you can also imagine, Fremont's emancipation proclamation was extremely controversial and
it does not remain in force for very long.
And while we often characterize Abraham Lincoln as the great emancipator, at this time, political,
he was not there yet.
Lincoln, did not want to nerve loyal slave owners, particularly in Missouri or Kentucky
who were told very explicitly that this was not a war to destroy slavery.
Plus he did not believe that Lincoln's, I'm sorry, Fremont's actions to be in
line with the First Confiscation Act.
Lincoln is going to secretly request that Fremont rescind his emancipation proclamation.
Fremont who was a political rival of Lincoln, started to try to grandstand.
He sent a reply back to Lincoln stating, "If you're really wanting to do this, make your
rebuke of me public."
Well, Lincoln said, "that is not a problem," and he sent a reply and instead of listening
to the president of the United States of America, Fremont made 200 more copies of his emancipation
proclamation and sent them around the state.
And as you could probably guess, Fremont lost his job.
Fremont's experiment of sorts was a failure.
Only two men were emancipated and there was the question of whether that was done legally.
But slowly but surely, other Unionists started to begin to view the targeted destruction
of slavery as essential to the broader Union cause.
So, as the war intensified the following year, the institution of slavery became an even
greater target than it had been previously.
In the summer of 1862, Congress clarified through what was known as the Second Confiscation
Act that human property, i.e. slaves, could not only be confiscated but freed as well.
This, the passage of this law, was significant is disrupting slavery in Missouri and then
slave people before the emancipation proclamation who made it to Union lines and affirmed their
master's disloyalty could receive their freedom.
And here, actually, is an example of a testimony given by a former slave in August of 1862
to his master's disloyally.
I'll read it to you because it's a little hard to read.
He says, "I belong to Anderson Bowles who resides in Manchester, Missouri, and his two
sons are in the Southern army and are well known to be secessionists.
Mr. Bowles beat me very often and I left home on the 27th day of July last."
People like this unnamed enslaved man, did this over and over again, and just several
years before, testimony from a black man against a white man would not be received in a court.
But in 1862 it was enough to secure a person's freedom.
Here are, here is a very rare example of, papers issued to someone freed, not by the
emancipation proclamation, but by the Confiscation Acts, the Second Confiscation Act.
The person emancipated was one by the name of Eliza Turner.
There is another one for her son as well, but she was the slave of the man we see on
the right: Trusten Polk.
Some of you might be familiar with that name.
Trusten Polk was a former governor of Missouri and at the time that the war began he was
a Senator.
Poke is going to be expelled from the Senate for supporting the Confederacy and he will
eventually become a Colonel in the Confederate army.
But it's going to be the Confiscation Acts, and I think that we don't give enough credit
to them, that will first formerly allow enslaved people to secure a new life, legally, away
from slavery.
But in a discussion of the death of slavery in American Historians and lay people often
place significant emphasis on the Emancipation Proclamation.
First issued following the Union's victory at Antietam in September of 1863, the Emancipation
Proclamation did not affect Missouri in the way that many might think.
President Lincoln's signature decree proclaimed free the vast majority of the nation's enslaved
population.
But although enslaved people had to either escape to Union lines or wait until the Union
army occupied the area in which they lived to the secure their freedom, the Emancipation
Proclamation nonetheless destabilized the institution of slavery and significantly weakened
the Confederate economy.
But Lincoln's measure was starkly different than any other executive order that he had
previously released.
It was absent of any tone of concession or reconciliation, and he forcefully articulated
that the war would be won by any means necessary.
The proclamation was intended to disrupt not only the southern economy but the slave society
as a whole.
It sowed discord on plantations and turned faithful slaves into potential spies.
It transformed enslaved cooks and attendants working in Confederate camps into Union moles.
It emboldened passive servants to become fugitive slaves and began and gave men who had been
stripped of their manhood an opportunity to choose a new path for themselves and their
families.
With the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln ensured that slavery itself would be the greatest
Confederate casualty of the war.
But while the Emancipation Proclamation nominally freed millions of people, several hundred
thousand remained legally in bondage, as the Emancipation Proclamation did not directly
apply to loyal slave states-also known as Border States.
And as a result, the loyal states, loyal slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and
Delaware, were exempted from this part of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Slavery is not declared illegal in this state until Jan 11th of 1865.
While the Emancipation Proclamation did not grant freedom to enslaved people in this state,
it did undermine slavery in Missouri.
If you ever get chance to read the entire Emancipation Proclamation there are several
clauses towards the end of the Proclamation after declaring who would be free and who
would not, Lincoln said this, he declared this, "that such persons of suitable condition,
will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions,
stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service."
In laments terms, he says that the Union army would soon be receiving black men into the
service.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, especially this clause, unleashed a nightmare scenario
in the South.
Not only were enslaved men and women emboldened to try and escape to Union lines, but now
some were tempted to pick up a gun and enlist.
Former Missouri Slave William Royce Brown, really hit home when he talked about the psychological
implications of giving arms to ex-slaves.
He said, he noted that slave holders, quote "trembled at the idea of meeting men in
open combat whose backs they had lacerated, whose wives and daughters they had torn from
their bosoms, whose hearts were bleeding from the wounds inflicted by them."
But before black men could enlist in the Union army and before the Emancipation Proclamation
went into effect, change began to appear right here in Missouri.
Encouraged by developments locally and nationally, African American men and women, moved their
own individual agendas forward with greater resolve.
This came by way of continued disruptions on plantations, escapes to Free states, and
most notably by armed action.
And while sometimes we assume that slaves were passive and they were waiting to be rescued
the reality is that many people, unconcerned whether the Emancipation Proclamation applied
to them or not, unconcerned about what day that went into effect, they pushed and resisted
against their slavery in many ways that we have not given full credit to.
One of the earliest examples of really some very stark pushback against the institution
of slavery, happened on Christmas Day 1862.
When a citizen informed military officials that a band of armed black men in Gasconade
County had crossed the river into Montgomery County to forcibly liberate slaves on their
own.
Now, the citizen complained, according to his letters, that this was not the first time
that they had done this.
They had done this twice before in the weeks preceding.
And, according to him the militia knew about them and they had failed to address the threat.
The citizen fearfully noted that "all the Negros at Herman either have a gun, a pistol
or a large knife."
Scary stuff.
Revolution was percolating in Missouri and black guerillas remained a concern in early
1863 as well.
A slave holder in southeastern Missouri expressed his fear that armed blacks, along with Union
soldiers, would systematically destroy the institution of slavery, not only in that part
of the state but throughout the country.
In a letter to his son, Missouri slave holder Grear Davis wrote, "The ghost of John Brown
is marching along still."
Davis wrote of several incidents of roving bands of black guerillas descending upon plantations
in Cape Girardeau, and forcibly liberating enslaved people-many people who were family
members of those who had escaped earlier.
Davis wrote of this fear that he and other slave owners had of this threat.
They said this," A large number are congregated at Cape Girardeau, if they want any of their
family, they can arm themselves, go with a few soldiers and take them, and they can with
the same forcibly take any other property we have, as we have no weapons…So long as
the government permits negroes to remain at the Cape, and the citizens of that place take
no steps to have them removed, no one in the country is safe in person or property, as
we are alike unarmed."
Despite the disruptions to the institution in early of 1863, slavery was very much alive
and very legal in Missouri.
But slavery in America was approaching a tipping point.
Unitarian minister and founder of Washington University really summed up the tension in
the air at the time.
He said, "Such was the condition of things in the spring of 1863-unseltteled, revolutionary,
with nothing clearly defined, neither slave nor slaveholder having any rights which they
felt to mutually respect."
But in light of the Emancipation Proclamation Missouri struggled to maintain the balance
between protecting slavery, which remained legal in the state, and supporting the Union.
Of the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation, first really truly felt in August of 1863.
And that month, Union officials began recruitment for the first black military regiment in the
state.
But concerns about unnerving loyal slave owner pushed the governor and other officials to
only enlist free men and slaves of disloyal owners.
Further and more surprisingly when I think about this, the regiment did not even receive
a Missouri state designation.
They were given the name the Third Arkansas Infantry African descent-were a little ways
away from Arkansas.
They will eventually be called the 56th United States Colored Infantry.
But as soon as they were mustered in at St. Louis they were removed from the state.
Though associated with Arkansas in name only these soldiers of the Third Arkansas the 56th
USCI would continue in official documents to refer to themselves as black men or black
soldiers in the state of Missouri.
There's actually a monument dedicated to them in Jefferson Barracks, a little bit farther
south of St. Louis.
This monument was put up, I believe, at the beginning of the 20th century, and it was
dedicated to the 175 soldiers from this unit who died from a cholera outbreak as they were
mustering out or they were on their way to muster out in August of 1866.
If you ever get a chance to go down to Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis it is a very interesting
monument to behold.
But this policy of enlisting free people and the slaves of disloyal owners only, only remained
in place for about two months.
Following fall election the war department mended the parameters of recruitment in Missouri,
widening their scope to include all abled bodied men regardless of condition of loyalty
or condition of loyalty of their masters.
And consequently five additional African American regiments were created.
They were initially called the First, Second, Third and Fourth Missouri Regiment Colored
Infantries.
But they would eventually, in March of 1864, be given federal designations and they would
be called the 62nd, the 65th, the 67th, and the 68th United States Colored Infantries,
respectively.
Now the army if going to add another federal regiment in 1864 known as the 18th United
States Colored Infantry, and it too would be based out of Missouri.
But why would black men, especially those who were ineligible for emancipation under
the Confiscation Acts or the Emancipation Proclamation fight for the Union when the
Union had maintained that slavery would remain legal in Border States, and when they said
that this was not a war to destroy slavery?
Was it because black men wanted to affirm their patriotism?
Was it to assert their manhood?
Was it to show themselves equal to any man?
My research suggests otherwise.
Now, Abraham Lincoln was well aware that patriotism and perhaps a chance to strike a blow against
slavery nationally was not enough to entice black men into the army locally.
In August of 1863, writing to a friend of his who opposed the Emancipation Proclamation,
and opposed the use of African American soldiers in battle, he wrote this response to him,
and it really kind of brings home why black men joined the army.
Abraham Lincoln said this.
He said: "But Negroes, like other people, act upon motives.
Why should they do [anything] for us, if we will do nothing for them?
If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive-even the
promise of freedom.
And the promise being made, must be kept."
But while some black men, and I stress some, selflessly enlisted for the purpose of helping
to destroy slavery nationwide and to prove their worthiness, most joined the Union army
to achieve for basic goals.
As I alluded to earlier, slavery dies in piecemeal fashion in Missouri.
It is a messy process and a number of enslaved people are going to suffer.
But the reason why most black men in Missouri, and perhaps nationwide, joined the Union army
is because that the army provided them that which they could not initially secure on their
own: their freedom and a steady income.
Enlistment insured immediate emancipation to any enslaved man accepted into the service,
regardless of his master's loyalty.
Black soldiers also received ten dollars a month until the summer of 1864 when their
pay was made equal to that of white soldiers at 13 dollars a month.
In addition they also received shelter, regular meals, and new clothing.
This new life as freedmen and as soldiers saved many formerly enslaved people from utter
destitution.
It also helped them to take care of their families, many members who remained in slavery.
But because enlistment was the only way that some men could secure their freedom ,many
risked death to enlist into the Union army, and reflective of their desperation recruits
who fled to Union lines were often subject to intimidation, some were beaten, and some
were killed.
A very small number would die in combat, but many more like George Ellis of the 65th USCT
would die of disease.
But despite the dangers associated with escape and enlistment, more than 8,000 African American
men from this state believed the military, military service excuse men, preferential
to further enslavement in Missouri.
And as the peculiar institution collapsed around the state the military remained the
best available option for a number of black men fleeing slavery in late 1863 and late
1864.
Many men would serve heroically and participate in the small number of notable battles, and
in fact black soldiers from this state who served in the United States 62nd USCT would,
according to official sources "fire the last shots of the Civil War on May 13th of
1865" at the battle of Palmito Ranch.
Now, while what black Missouri men did while in the army is a very interesting story, it
is not the focus of my talk tonight.
I really want to bring it back to why they served and not simply what they did as soldiers.
Enlistment freed a number of man- gave them a better life-but there were segments of the
African American population that opposed military service for various reasons.
Some did not want to be separated from their families, and when black men went into the
service and had members of their families remaining in slavery, many slave holders took
out their frustration, and their anger on those families that remained on the plantation.
Other men believed the rumors that they would be treated worse in the army than they had
been in slavery.
Others simply did not want anyone else to control their labor, their bodies, or their
lives.
One of the first instances, and I found this fascinating when I discovered this, one of
the first instances that we have when we see African American men publically opposing enlistment
occurs very shortly after the Union army opened to all black men regardless of condition.
At the city of Union in Franklin County in December of 1863, about fifty black men who
were forced to enlist in the army by the slave masters during the holiday, returned home
and they rebelled.
Now, they had been forced into the army, but they had received a furlough to come home
and spend time with their families during the holidays, which was really a very special
time for enslaved families.
After enjoying the company of their families the soldiers, drunk on holiday liquor, turned
their attention to their former masters.
These men, according to letters of the former masters in Union, Missouri, these soldiers
threatened to destroy the town and everyone who's in it.
One young man, 17- year old Spencer Chiles, whose name we see at the top, returned to
Union on the very day that he was forced into the service, and burned down his former master's
home.
All of these events occurred because these men did not want to go into the military.
This is not a suggestion, this is not me reading in-between the lines, this is exactly what
the primary sources state.
But although the reaction of the former slaves in Franklin County was somewhat extreme, this
was not an uncommon sentiment.
As former slaves actually considered, some former slaves considered enlistment as another
form of slavery or servitude, as the life of an enlisted man was not his own.
An assistant provost marshal at Kansas City remarked that when talking to some black men
in that city about enlistment many men informed him that, "we have served long enough, and
it will be time enough when we are pressed or forced to go into the service," he explained
this, "these men have obtained the idea that the service is dangerous and that their
freedom is already accomplished.
In this portion of the state with hardly an exception, they refused to enlist.
In this vane, African American men did not see the Civil War as this collective struggle
to destroy slavery.
These men viewed their freedom as individualistic and saw enlistment as secondary to their needs
to secure financial or economic security.
Now outside of joining the army, the primary way that black men, during the civil war,
secured a measure of economic stability was through wage labor.
The availability of contracted wage labor became, or the opportunities became more plentiful
in early 1863, as the military started to match thousands of former slaves in the region
with loyal employers.
Many whose enslaved work forces had left for freedom.
Plantation owners especially wanted or needed to keep their operations running, and by not
having workers to cultivate the fields they risked losing all that they had.
Contracts were usually done or written by military officials at St. Louis.
And this is only one of three examples of actual free labor wage contracts that I have
been able to find in the last six or seven years of research that I have conducted.
This out of Benton Barracks St. Louis and this was a contract for twelve dollars.
This man was employed by a Union surgeon by the name of James Martine who eventually would
be sued because he did not follow the terms of his contract interestingly enough.
Juxtaposed against enlistment, contracted employment provided a measure of physical
and financial security that military life could not provide.
While black men who found employment through the free labor system, conducted only expected
to earn exactly what or a little bit more than soldiers made, other African American
men operating outside the purview of military officials could earn much more money.
In some instances I saw some people earning as much as three dollars a day.
That was not typical, that was at a time when there were vast labor shortages in western
Missouri.
But some men obtained jobs as riverboat porters or waiters and they did a lot better than
men in the army.
Free labor opportunities become so abundant, they were actually the greatest deterrent
to the formation of additional regiments in Missouri.
One officer complained, "Wages is high and the demand for hands keeps the Negroes out
of the army.
Is there anyway by which these men can be recruited?"
By May of 1864 it was evident that most black men in Missouri viewed free labor as a better
option than military service.
Low enlistment numbers pushed the Union army to consider drafting men into the military
which they did beginning in September of 1864.
But representative of a desire either to find or seek out the highest paying job or a concern
that military life or enlistment could be directly or indirectly detrimental to their
families a significant number of formerly enslaved men rejected or delayed military
service in favor of wage labor opportunities.
Now the allure of nonmilitary work options among formerly enslaved men is only part of
story, when we examine the tension between enlistment and free labor.
One side of the black population that I have not mentioned tonight that are important to
the story are free black men.
Now their response to the call for enlistment was even starker than their enslaved counterparts.
While only some enslaved men or formerly enslaved men rejected military service in contrast,
the vast majority of free black men rejected federal military service altogether.
Like enslaved men, free blacks viewed military service through the lenses of opportunity,
individual need and necessity.
Many chose to work instead of fight.
Although their race limited their employment prospects, free black men especially at place
like St. Louis, were often able to secure a steady income in a variety of fields outside
of the army.
Free black men not only found jobs as laborers or farm hands, but also found employment in
more specialized occupations like carpentry or blacksmithing.
Even men who served as porters or waiters earned enough money to take care of their
families in 1861 through 1865.
Some African Americans, in fact, made considerable sums working as riverboat porters or as barbers
which was a very lucrative profession for African American men in the nineteenth century.
I have even found one example of a wealthy African American barber by the name of Henry
Clay Morgan, paying three hundred dollars to another African American to serve in his
place in the military.
There was a period in which, if you were drafted or if you didn't want to serve you could
pay someone else three hundred dollars to serve in your place and be exempted from military
service.
Henry Clay Morgan is the only African American man I have been able to find that did this,
but that was representative of his wealth and his relative influence in St. Louis at
the time.
So free black men in St. Louis and other places could earn far more than the ten to thirteen
dollars that African American soldiers made at the time.
As a result, by and large, they are going to reject military service.
Because the federal army payed less than what a number of skilled black artisans made, free
black men may have seen military service as a burden, as a financial burden.
We can glean this idea from a letter that I found from a black barber to the head of
military operations in Missouri.
In this letter he expressed his concern about pay given to privates.
In this letter, that is kind of hard to read, he says this, "I think that I am sufficiently
patriotic to go into the ranks, but a young family who are dependent upon me cannot live
upon the pay that are paid to privates.
If nothing else could be had, I should like to be given a recruiting commission.
So he says that, "Yes I am patriotic, I want to help the Union cause, but if the pay
is not right I'm going to go back to cutting hair."
Nonetheless, in addition to financial concerns, other factors pushed free black men to reject
military service.
The primary reason that any man or enslaved men went into the service was to secure their
freedom.
Free black men, on the other hand, had no such need.
A seriously understudied aspect of the black community's response to the civil war surrounds
the issue of class.
Notions of class divided the African American community, and, in many ways, shaped how some
African American men responded the Unions call for black soldier.
By virtue of their pre-war disposition, free black Missourians held a measure of social
status that distinguished them from the enslaved population.
While some were born free, others worked hard to save enough money to purchase their own
freedom and the freedom of other family members or friends.
Others, however, sued for their freedom based on technicalities in the Missouri law.
Although they didn't have the same rights as white men, they did have freedom of movement,
they have the right to enter contracts, and they had the right to own property.
But former Missouri slave, Henry Bruce, really highlighted his class divide in the African
American community.
Henry Bruce is a former Missouri slave.
His brother would become the first African American senator elected to the senate.
He said this: "The free fellows felt themselves better than the slave, because of the fact,
I suppose, and that they were no freer than the slave until the war set both classes free."
But illuminating the cultural and social divides between those freed before the war and those
emancipated during the conflict, Reverend Edward L. Woodson, an African American Baptist
minister living in St. Louis at the time of the war, alluded to this class dynamic in
regards to enlistment in his testimony to the American Freedman's Commission.
And he said this.
This was a remarkable quote that I couldn't believe I found.
He said this.
He said quote, "The colored people generally are not so much in favor of it, but there
are a good many who are in favor of it."
He clarified, "The free people, who have bought themselves, are not much inclined to
it, but the others," and he says that kind of derogatorily, "but the others are in
favor of it.
They rarely decline unless there is some influence brought to bear upon them."
Others states, interestingly enough, saw similar patterns.
Commenting on the free people of color in Virginia and Maryland, historian and veteran
of the Civil War, Joseph Wilson, noted that quote, "This class of people never enlisted
to any great numbers, either before or after 1863, and there finally came to be a general
want of spirit with them, while among the slave class there was a ready enthusiasm to
enlist."
But all of the freemen of color, for the most part, did not enlist in federal regiments.
Others did server in several militia units designed to defend and protect their home
counties and other strategic areas.
The initial response to form black militia units in places like St. Louis was tepid.
The first black militia unit in the state was known as the second battalion St. Louis
city guard colored infantry, and they were formed in preparation of what they thought
was Price's invasion of Missouri in October of 1864.
But this called for a battalion, and the largest city in Missouri at the time with the largest
free black population only yielded eighty-seven recruits.
Eighty-seven recruits.
This was far less than they wanted and was very reflective of not only class concerns,
but also, and I found this out later, is the fact that these men were not paid for their
service.
Nonetheless, if militia service would have remained optional for black men, I am pretty
sure that free black men, probably, would have stayed on the sidelines for as long as
they could.
But circumstances in Missouri changed, and free black men will serve, albeit briefly.
There are a number of black militia units formed during the Civil War in the state of
Missouri, but the vast majority, the bulk of them, are organized not as voluntary regiments,
but were created following the passage of a state law in February of 1865, when the
Missouri General Assembly reactivated the Missouri Militia Organization, and ordered
that, "all inhabitants," as is says, "of the state of Missouri, who had not been exempt
previously due to age, occupation, and health, would be included in a mandatory enrollment
in their respective counties."
This new call for enrollment reflected the recent abolition of slavery the month previously.
African Americans who had been previously exempted from militia service were now subject
to the provisions of this act, and as a result, African Americans formed several black companies
attached to white militia regiments led by white officers.
The largest regiment would be a standalone regiment in St. Louis, the fifty-second colored
militia.
And more than three thousand men, who, many of them skilled laborers, business owners,
we've got tobacconists, we do have farmers, river men, porters, blacksmiths, and others.
But, we have more than three thousand African American men in the largest city in the state
who, up until February of 1865, had rejected military service completely.
These men, who will consider themselves veterans, will never see combat.
And many of the notable veterans of the Civil War, like James Milton Turner, Like Charleton
Tandy, would be regimental officers for this regiment.
What I find very ironic though is that as black men petitioned for the right to vote
in 1865, free black men, collectively, would refer to themselves as the only true representatives
of black veterans, something that still blows my mind when I read that.
But choosing to enlist in the military, and choosing to engage in free labor, represented
two different approaches that black men in Missouri took to secure their families during
the civil war.
The disorderly collapse of slavery in Missouri pushed African American men to forgo emerging
notions of black patriotism in favor of doing that which most benefitted their families.
Emancipation for all and the quality under the law was important, but of secondary concerns
to the pressing needs of food, shelter, clothing, and financial stability.
These stark choices should not be proof of selfishness or an absence of a long term vision
for the race, but, instead, they should be viewed for what they were, difficult choices
made during a time of unprecedented socioeconomic upheaval and war.
The inference that African Americans collectively thought, acted, or were driven by the same
motivations, belies the fact that they, like other ethnic and racial groups, did not operate
as a monolith.
Thus, the African American response to the Civil War was diverse.
It is truly my hope that scholars of African American history and the Civil War, will re-examine
black participation in the war in other states, to fully understand how black families viewed
and interpreted the war.
African Americans are not figures to lionize or objects of pity.
They were simply people with hopes, dreams, and aspirations and diverse views on life.
And, although the United States rejected enlisting African Americans at the beginning of the
Civil War, conditions in the second year pushed the Union army to muster in black soldiers.
And the use of black soldiers, by the Union army, provided the United States with an advantage
over the confederacy and ensured that the institution of slavery would be irreparably
broken.
Analyzing Civil War era primary sources through the lenses of not only race, but class, provides
a rich, new perspective concerning the makeup of black military companies and reveals that
most African Americans viewed military service from and individual, and not a collective,
perspective.
African American military service in Missouri depended heavily upon the individual needs,
conditions, and desires of men who had the opportunity to enlist.
Formerly enslaved men enlisted in federal regiments mainly to secure the basic needs
of food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their families, while black men, reflective
of class and financial concerns, enlisted primarily in local militias or rejected military
service altogether.
But though individual concerns guided free and enslaved men as they responded to the
Civil War, both groups worked together towards creating better opportunities for black Missourians
in a post war period.
Thank you very much.
I'd be happy to take any questions.
I can't see out there in the audience to well, the light is pretty bright, but if anyone
has a question, please come down to the microphone and I'd be happy to answer them.
[Audience member]: Hi. [Miller Boyd]: Hi.
How are ya?
Audience Member: Good.
As I'm sure you know, Lincoln University was founded by this sixty-second and sixty-fifth
colored infantries.
[Miller Boyd]: Of course.
[Audience Member]: And I was wondering if you could comment, I mean, what you're talking
about in terms of practicality of those who didn't want to join the military.
There also was some idealism among those who did join and so I'm wondering if there was
kind of a split there right?
Because they did end up, those two infantries, did end up donating
[Miller Boyd]: Of course.
[Audience Member]: almost all of their earnings even as pathetic as they were to further that
educational institution.
[Miller Boyd]: Oh most definitely.
Most definitely.
There was a man from the sixty second, no I'm sorry, the sixty fifth, who donated
about a hundred dollars, nearly a year's salary, to help found Lincoln University.
And there is Idealism, there is a greater cause that some men fought for.
The patterns of enlistment tell me that that's not the primary reason why men are going into
battle or enlisting in the army.
I think it helps to serve as a justification or kind of a larger, broader cause that they
were committed to.
But, in terms of deciding whether to enlist, I really think it was these basic needs, and
a lot of people talk about Frederick Douglass, Martin Delaney, and their call for black soldiers
to come into the army and to help destroy slavery.
On the ground here in Missouri, I just do not see that being the driving force or the
motivating factor.
If a man has a wife dying of small pox or children literally starving, if military service
is going to help them then he is going to go into the army to make sure they are fed.
But if there are free labor opportunities that pay more that allow him to stay with
his family, the pattern shows that they are going to go with those free labor options.
In the post war period, you're going to have a number of formerly enslaved people
and free people working together to establish Lincoln, to help with its expansion.
But those class concerns remained an issue in the post war period.
It's something that's understudied.
I think there needs to be more research on it, but I really think, and I go back to my
training as a psychology minor and the son of a psychologist, I go back to this notion
of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and it's this notion where you have the first thing
you are looking for are the basics: food, shelter, and clothing.
Then you can worry about how other people view you and going up the pyramid.
I really think it is those basic needs that drive men to do what they did and to respond
in the manner that they did.
[Audience Member]: Thank you.
[Miller Boyd]: Thank you.
[Keona Ervin]: Wonderful presentation.
[Applause] [Keona Ervin]: We encourage everybody to meet
outside, to meet our speaker and to ask more questions.
Thank you so much for coming.
Good night.
For more infomation >> ПРИЧЕСКА В ШКОЛУ |МИЛЫЕ ПРИЧЕСКИ ПЛЕТЕНИЯ |HAIRSTYLES FOR SCHOOL|HAIRSTYLES TUTORIAL|ЕЛЕНА ЗАИТОВА - Duration: 5:42. 
For more infomation >> Sample Sessions Ep.2 | Lyric On The Beat - Duration: 7:55. 
For more infomation >> Animals Lebanon Saves Three Tiger Cubs Headed for Syria - Duration: 0:56. 
For more infomation >> Beauty Tips in Urdu | Home Remedies for Dry Skin on Face in Urdu/Hindi | Dry Skin Care Home Remedies - Duration: 3:38. 
For more infomation >> Waiting For A Girl Like You / Foreigner 20160921 - Duration: 4:44. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét