Was the Battle of Gettysburg Really a Major Defeat for the Confederacy?

The Battle of Gettysburg during the U.S. Civil War is usually considered a victory for the North; however, alternative arguments can be made. Here, Jeb Smith considers whether Gettysburg was really a major defeat for the Confederacy.

Bayonet charge by the Union’s 1st Minnesota against Confederate forces on July 2, 1863. By Dan Troiani, available here.

In his lecture series on the U.S. Civil War, renowned historian Gary Gallagher explained that the South in 1863 did not perceive the Battle of Gettysburg as a defeat but rather as a draw. Even though it ultimately fell short of its primary objective, to achieve a significant victory over the Army of the Potomac and thus bring about peace talks, many Southern leaders saw the campaign as a success because it pulled the Federals out of Virginia, providing its war-ravaged farmlands much-needed rest. It also maneuvered the war to the North where Confederates lived off of Northern farms and supplies. Famed cavalry general Jeb Stuart wrote his wife, "Gen Lee maneuvering the Yankees out of Virginia is the grandest piece of strategy ever heard of.”

Gary Gallagher mentioned how the Battle of Gettysburg was not driven from the field for the South; they simply failed to remove the Federals from their positions on Day 3. Since they made an orderly retreat rather than being driven from the battlefield, the engagement was viewed by most at the time as a draw. Some Southern soldiers (and the populace, newspapers, etc.) viewed it as a victory since they won day 1, driving the Federals back, and maintained their positions on days 2 and 3. In Jeb Stuart: The Last Cavalier Burke Davis wrote, “There was not a spirit of defeat in the army this morning; men waited hopefully for Federal attack on their hill.”

Battle

Gallagher described Day 1 as one of the great attacking victories of the war, with Southern forces successfully pushing back two Federal corps and inflicting heavy losses. On Day 2, the outnumbered South launched an attack against Federals who were entrenched on high ground, managing to cause more damage than they sustained. Federal General George Meade was so bloodied after Day 2 that he considered retreating and made plans to do so, but his subordinates persuaded him to stay. As Confederate General James Longstreet was quoted as saying in the Ken Burns Documentary on the Civil War, “When the second day's battle was over General Lee declared it a success.”

By the end of the three-day bloodbath, the Federals had suffered such enormous casualties (the largest of any battle of the war) that they did not mount a significant offensive in Virginia for 10 months.

Many see Gettysburg as a major defeat because Lee never invaded the North again. Yet this had more to do with the cumulative loss of manpower to all Southern armies and a drop in morale coupled with larger, more aggressive Northern armies. At the time, nobody knew Lee would not invade again, and some thought he would. General Jeb Stuart wrote his wife on July 13th “We return without defeat to recuperate and reinforce when no doubt the role will be reenacted."

Further, Confederate General Jubal Early invaded the North in ‘64, at one point threatening Washington D.C., and Lee sent Longstreet and two divisions to Tennessee after Gettysburg, enabling Braxton Bragg to take the offensive there and win the battle of Chickamauga. If Lee had just suffered a significant defeat or thought himself in danger, why would he send his top corps with two veteran divisions to the Western theatre? Why not consolidate defensively? Instead, he was still thinking offensively. And Lee showed the South had plenty of fight left in ‘64.

Loss?

Others say the South lost the war at Gettysburg; I don't see how this is so. Gettysburg, combined with Vicksburg, was a big blow to Southern manpower. However, it could also be argued the South was already finished when Stonewall Jackson died. But still, regardless of Jackson and the results of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Lincoln was not likely to be reelected (Peace Democrats would have triumphed) until General Sherman captured Atlanta and Jubal Early (who was making headlines) was defeated in the Shenandoah Valley. Those events, along with Admiral Farragut’s earlier triumph at Mobile Bay, secured Lincoln's reelection and won the war for the North, not Gettysburg. The high casualties of 1864 and battles like Gettysburg (union losses of 23,000) almost cost the Union the war, and the people of the North desired peace, until new Union victories restored popular morale.

Jeb Smith is the author of four books, the most recent being Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions About The Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy, And Liberty. Before that, he published Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War. Smith has authored dozens of articles in various publications, including The Postil Magazine, History is Now Magazine, Medieval History, Medieval Magazine and Fellowship & Fairydust, and featured on various podcasts.

The Salvation Army, Economic Emigration, and The British Empire

The Salvation Army (the Army) is predominantly known as an international charitable organization. For over a million people worldwide, it is an Evangelical church with its own distinctive polity and practice, owing its heritage to British Methodism and American Revivalism. Less well-known is that between 1891 and 1932, the Army supported over 100,000 men, women, and children to travel from Britain to her colonies across the sea. This Evangelical movement and engine for social reform became an emigration agency because they believed that moving the ‘surplus population’ out of Britain into unclaimed land in the colonies would reduce poverty, specifically urban deprivation, in the mother country.

Christopher Button explains.

Salvation Army co-founder William Booth.

Introduction

The Salvation Army began social service work in 1866, with the first food depots providing meals for dockers who had been laid off during the collapse of the Poplar shipyards. By the 1870s, social service work had transformed into social reform work. Early examples included the establishment of rescue homes for female sex workers who were trained to become domestic servants or given jobs such as bookbinders. They also set up sheltered workshops for unemployed or homeless men to enable them to learn a trade and return to work. According to William Booth, the simple principle was that:

Any person who comes to a shelter destitute and starving, will be supplied with sufficient work to enable him to earn the fourpence needed for his bed and board. This is a fundamental feature of the scheme, and which I think will commend it to all those who are anxious to benefit the poor by enabling them to help themselves without the demoralising intervention of charitable relief…There is no compulsion upon anyone to resort to our shelters, but if a penniless man wants food her must, as a rule, do work sufficient to pay for what he has of that and of other accommodation. I say as a rule because, of course, our officers will be allowed to make exceptions in extreme cases.[1]

The Victorian demand that people should lift themselves up by their bootstraps was adopted by the Army. The Army expected and demanded from the customers of its social relief efforts that they engage in hard work, commitment to personal transformation, and, where absolutely necessary, the absolute minimum of charity to allow them to do so.

In Darkest England

In 1890, the Army released the blueprint for a new, totalizing, and universal scheme of social reform that would provide a system of welfare designed to work towards eradicating poverty and destitution and bring about the salvation of the world. This project was called In Darkest England and the Way Out, written principally by William Booth and published in 1890. It sold over 100,000 editions within the first few months. It was, in its way, quite a simple scheme. There were three parts to this scheme. Each was a form of colony, consciously adopting the structures of empire just as the book’s title borrowed from David Livingstone’s book Darkest Africa. The language is telling and is something we will return to.

The first step was the ‘City Colony’ including food depots, shelters, rescue work for women, salvage yards and ‘elevators.’

The ‘Elevator’ was a new concept in social services, combining generous acceptance with patient but unwavering discipline. ‘No one brings a reference here’ explained an officer in charge of one such institution. ‘If a man is willing to work, he stays; if not, he goes.’ No guide line could be simpler for the entrant; none more demanding upon those who were seeking his rehabilitation…The elevator was, in effect, and entry form of ‘sheltered workshop’ – a concept which was little known at the time and consequently less understood.[2]

The elevator was a combination of shelter and workshop or factory. Men could find somewhere to live and work in various trades to pay for their bed and board and gain enough stability to seek work in the trade they were learning. Central to every part of the city colony was regular, often daily, worship for all the residents. None were compelled to attend, but for many, it was an easy source of entertainment. Attendance at salvation meetings in the shelters across 1891 was recorded at 136,579, with 708 recorded as being converted. The work of social reform was undertaken hand in hand with the work of personal reformation with the intent of universal conversion.

For those city colonists who thrived and demonstrated their proper attitude to work, the second stage of the Darkest England scheme beckoned. This was the ‘Farm Colony.’ The Army intended to take select members of the urban poor who had demonstrated their willingness to work and submit to discipline and transplant them to training farms. Sir John Gorst QC MP wrote:

The unemployed is taken away from the town where he competes with a congested mass of workers, too numerous for existing employment opportunities, and brought back to the land, where he produces more than he consumes, where his labour enriches the nation without lessening the earnings of his fellow workmen.[3]

The Army in the UK bought a farm in Hadleigh, Essex, and developed it to receive colonists from the city. Similar farms were purchased in Australia, America, and South Africa. Farm colonists would work for the first month purely for bread and board. Then, if they demonstrated their willingness to learn, work, and behave, they would start to be paid. The farm colonists learned to work the land in small holdings or as tenant farmers. Some were returned to the city as unsuitable for the farm. Others were encouraged to purchase a 5-acre smallholding from the Army at favorable interest rates and become independent. But for others, they would be eligible for the third part of the Darkest England scheme — the Colony Across the Seas.

The Colony Across the Sea

Here, we come to the point at hand. The Darkest England scheme was dependent upon the British Empire. The Darkest England scheme could not have worked without the shared culture, language, infrastructure and transportation links. The fact that the scheme did not live up to its promise has less to do with the Empire and more to do with the incredible amount of funding necessary to make it practicable. Despite the relative failure of the Darkest England scheme beyond the city colony, the limited successes and the plans for the scheme highlight the inherent links between the Army and the Empire. William Booth said:

It Is absurd to speak of the colonies as If they were a foreign land. They are simply pieces of Britain distributed about the world, enabling the Britisher to have access to the richest parts of the earth.[4]

In the same way, the Army intended to send Britain’s poorest, properly trained and equipped, out to the parts of the Empire where land was underutilized. The movement from city to farm to overseas farm or factory was meant to become a new system built into the structure of Britain. By reducing the overall population and upskilling the urban poor, not only would Britain benefit, but the colonies would be developed. Ausubel wrote:

Indeed, one of the purposes of the In Darkest England scheme itself was to bring about structural change, since Booth was one of those Victorian reformers who believed that as population was the root course of the long depression from the early 1870s to the late 1890s and that mass emigration was part of the answer to this problem.[5]

The Army started supporting the emigration of its farm colonists to the colonies over the seas in 1891. Initially, colonists went to New South Wales and Queensland. By November 1891, 95 emigrants had been sent overseas by the Army with letters of recommendation for farms and factories in the receiving territories. The 1907 yearbook reported that since 1905, 15,000 people had emigrated through the Army’s agency. However, problems in the scheme were starting to emerge.

A key example comes from New Zealand, where there was…

Agitation against the scheme by Trades and Labour Councils…On the grounds that living standards of workers would be depressed by this introduction into the Colonies of what they termed ‘undesirable persons the Pauper and criminal scum of the alleys and byways of Great Britain.’[6]

The colonies, especially New Zealand and Australia, did not want to receive people who had been destitute and dwelling in London’s slums until recently. The costs involved in emigration had, until then, helped to ensure that those emigrating from Britain had been able to support themselves on arrival. The Army supported the Salvationist colonists, but they were travelling to improve themselves and did not go with their own resources.

Another issue was that William Booth and the Army had somewhat misunderstood the relationship between Britain and her colonies and dominions. By the early 1900s, the Empire was already starting to decentralize, especially in the self-governing states and dominions. Britain could not simply tell the governments of Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa to give spare land to colonists from The Salvation Army. The Army was not empowered to create new colonies, and the Imperial government could not provide the Army with new land. The Army was not given unused land in the existing colonies. The third stage of the Darkest England scheme seemed to be failing, so the Army had to turn to a broader approach to emigration.[7]

Family Emigration

Colonel David Lamb, the new commander of the emigration department, decided to broaden the project to include families as well as single men. This brought into reality some of William Booth's hopes for Darkest England.

In the Salvation Ship we shall export them all – father, mother, and children. The individuals will be grouped in families, and the families will, on the farm colony, have been for some months part more or less near neighbours, meeting each other in the field, in the workshops, and in the religious services. It will resemble nothing so much as the unmouring of a little piece of England, and towing it across the sea to find a safe anchorage in a sunnier clime. The ship which takes out emigrants will have the produce of the farms, and constant travelling to and from will lead more than ever to the feeling that we and our ocean-sundered brothers are members of one family.[8]

With Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa actively working against William Booth’s scheme of social imperialism, it was up to Canada to rescue Darkest England. The relationship between the Army emigration service and Canada developed until the Army became one of Canada’s leading immigration agencies, accredited and financially sponsored by the Canadian government and funded by direct donations in the UK. Between 1905 and 1907, the Army chartered fourteen ocean liners with a thousand immigrants on each. By the opening of the First World War, over 50,000 settlers had been supported in moving to Canada. By 1932, when the emigration service ended, more than 112,000 people from Britain had moved to Canada.

The system was comprehensive. Corps officers in the UK advertised the scheme and supported families in applying for emigration through the Army’s agency. Social officers helped identify likely candidates from the shelters or Hadleigh Farm and made their applications to the agency. The emigration department also stationed agents in the Army’s labour exchange bureaus, particularly helping domestic servants emigrate. The Army also offered emigration insurance for the settlers. For 10 shillings, the traveler would be insured against loss of belongings and against the risk of not finding employment. Whilst most settlers using the Army’s emigration agency had a position organized on their behalf for when they arrived, some went without work waiting for them in the hope of finding a position. The Army would pay for their return to Britain if they did not find work.

The Army chartered liners to carry the new colonists from the UK to Canada on an alcohol-free trip. They were accompanied on the ships by Salvation Army officers who led worship and prayer meetings, offered counsel, and gave lectures on the culture of the colonist's new home. The Salvationist colonists would then be welcomed by officers at receiving stations and transported to their new homes, where the local officer would make introductions and ensure they were connected to the corps. Then, if they did not join the local corps, they would receive a semi-annual visit from an Army officer to assess their progress. From start to finish, the whole scheme was operated as part of the Army’s international mission.

Conclusion

The Army combined the structures and methods of the British Empire with an Evangelical Zeal for conversion and the belief that salvation was as much about this world as it was about the next. William Booth wrote:

I saw that when the Bible said, ‘He that believeth shall be saved’ it meant not only saved from the miseries of the future world, but from the miseries of this [world] also. Then it came from the promise of Salvation here and now; from hell and sin and vice and crime and idleness and extravagance, and consequently very largely from poverty and disease, and the majority of kindred woes.[9]

The Army's social reform work was grounded In the underlying principle that social transformation would only make a lasting difference to the world if it were combined with individual conversion. Helping the poor through social reformation was at least partially undertaken to remove the obstacles to salvation. A hungry person, a cold person, or a homeless person would not become a Christian. By removing them from their circumstances of poverty, giving them a trade, and moving them to a new land with a place to become independent, the individual would better themselves and society as well.

However, far more critical for the Army was the hope that by transporting saved Salvationists around the world, they would create colonies of salvation which would spread the word of Salvationism. The central doctrine of Salvationism was that its members evangelized to the groups they had been part of. The converted drinker went back to preach to the drinkers. The sex workers told her previous colleagues about the possibility of rescue and redemption. Walker wrote:

One of the most significant features of The Salvation Army was the relationships of its members to the wider community. As soon as people were saved, they were asked to stand before a crowd and relate their experience of conversion…If the Spirit of God pervaded an individual, he or she was ready to preach and testify regardless of previous sinfulness, lack of education, of inexperience.[10]

Without the British Empire, its transportation network, its shared culture and language, and William Booth's implicit assumptions that the Imperial territories were simply an extension of Britain, The Salvation Army would not have been able to grow in the way it did. The British Empire was to be matched by a Salvation Empire, spread around the world, transporting Salvationists in ready-made units to the far reaches of Christendom to go out and grow William Booth’s Christian Imperium and usher in the prophesied Millennium.

Christopher Button writes at Theology Corner (link here).

Bibliography

All The World – Salvation Army Publication

Ausubel, Herman. In Hard Ties: Reformers Among the Late Victorians, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960)

Bradwell, Cyril R. Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983, (Wellington: Reed, 1982)

Bradwell, Cyril R. Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983, (Wellington: Reed, 1982)

Booth, William, In Darkest England and the Way Out, (London: The Salvation Army, 1890)

Coutts, Frederick. Bread for my Neighbour: The Social Influence of William Booth, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1978)

Sandall, Robert The History of The Salvation Army Volume III 1883-1953 Social and Welfare Work, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. 1955)

Walker, Pamela J. Pulling the Devil’s Kingdon Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain, (London: University of California, 2001)

White, Arnold, The Great Idea: Notes by an Eye-Witness on Some of the Social Work of the Salvation Army, (London: The Salvation Army, 1910)

[1] William Booth, quoted in Sandall, The History Vol. III, p. 120

[2] Coutts, Bread for my Neighbour, pp. 106-107

[3] John Gorst quoted in Coutts, Bread for my Neighbour, p. 78

[4] William Booth, Darkest England, pp. 143-144

[5] Ausubel, In Hard Times, p. 180

[6] Bradwell, Fight the Good Fight, pp. 53-54

[7] White, The Great Idea, p. 47-49

[8] William Booth, In Darkest England, p. 152

[9] William Booth, “Salvation to Both Worlds” All The World, January 1889 pp. 1-6

[10] Walker, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down, p. 187

How the North and South Treated Minorities During the U.S. Civil War

During the U.S. Civil War, the North and South treated minority groups in different ways – and some of these may be surprising to readers. Here, Jeb Smith looks at how the North and South treated Catholics, Jews, and Native Americans during the Civil War period.

Brigadier General Stand Watie.

"Their clergy [Catholic]blessed the flags of Confederate regiments, and their opposition to the federal regime in New Orleans was more uncompromising than that of any other group...A Richmond editor wrote, "Catholic Hierarchy of the South… were warm supporters of the Southern cause, and zealous advocates of the justice upon which this war of defense….was conducted."

-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America 1861-1865 Baton Rouge: The Louisiana State University Press 1950

Historian Phillip Tucker wrote, "The South in general was actually far more multicultural and more multiethnic than the North in 1860...the South was in general less racist towards ethnic groups, including the Irish and Jews, than the North." Minorities received better treatment in the South than in the North. Catholicism played a more significant role in the South and was more accepted by the population. Like the old South, traditional Catholicism honored hierarchy, aristocracy, chivalry, and other traditional values. Also, like the South, pre-Vatican II Catholics were traditionalists and rejected modernity. Traditional Catholics had more in common culturally and politically with the South than with the progressive North.

Catholics

Historian James McPherson  shows that Catholics under Pope Pius the IX (Pope from 1846-1878) still maintained much of their older traditional identity. Pius was described as a "violent enemy of liberalism and social reform." In his 1864 Syllabus of Errors, he wrote that it was an error to think the Pope should agree with "progress, liberalism, and modern civilization." Pope Pius X commanded "all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries" to take an "oath against modernism." In The Story of Christianity Volume II.  Historian Justo Gonzalez observed "a growing gulf between mainstream modern thought and society on the one hand and Catholicism on the other."

Further, nothing brings groups together like similar enemies. Robert Fogel shows that Republicans viewed "Catholicism and slavery as twin despotisms." They hated Catholics because "The Catholic church was in league with the pro-slavery democratic party to destroy the principles of free government," wrote an 1858 organ of the Republican party in Illinois. James McPherson  wrote, "The Puritan war against popery had gone on for two and a half centuries and was not over yet...hostility to Romanism (as well as rum) remained a subterranean current within Republicanism."

Like the Virginian theologian R.L Dabney, Archbishop John Hughes of N.Y. referred to abolitionists as "Red-republicans." Hughes condemned public schools as godless promoters of "Socialism, Red Republicanism, Universalism, Infidelity, Deism, Atheism, and Pantheism." And while Dabney was no friend of Catholic theology, they were kin in mind when it came to modernity. In Catholics Lost Cause, Adam Tate writes, "Catholics and southern conservatives viewed the North as the locus of American radicalism and took refuge in Jeffersonian conceptions of both the Union and the Constitution."

"Protestants funded Catholic churches, schools, and hospitals, while Catholics also contributed to Protestant causes. Beyond financial support, each group participated in the institutions created by the other. Catholics and Protestants worshipped in each other's churches, studied in each other's schools, and recovered or died in each other's hospitals…Catholic-Protestant cooperation complicates the dominant historiographical view of interreligious animosity and offers a model of religious pluralism in an unexpected place and time."

-Andrew Stern Southern Harmony: Catholic-Protestant Relations in the Antebellum South Cambridge University Press 2018

Kinship

Southerners felt a kinship with Catholics that was absent in the North. According to southern writer Daniel Hundley, "In Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and other portions of the far South, the progenitors of the Southern Gentleman were chiefly Spanish Dons and French Catholics." Compared to the North, Catholics had a much more significant influence on southern society. The Cavalier South was more tolerant and did not seek to conform others to their image as the Puritan North did. As a result, the South was admired by old-time Catholic conservatives like Lord Acton, Hilaire Belloc, and G.K Chesterton, who said: "Old England can still be faintly traced in Old Dixie."

In Catholic Confederates, Gracjan Kraszewski notes that "Catholics made themselves virtually indistinguishable from their Protestant neighbors." He refers to the "Confederatization" of Catholics that occurred to a greater extent in the South than in the North. The South accepted Catholics, and Catholics accepted the South. They became one with each other. Kraszewski writes, "More than one hundred years before Vatican II and JFK, Catholics in the South were fully integrated members of society who, save for their religion, believed the same things and acted similarly to their well-known Protestant neighbors."

When the separation came, southern Bishops almost universally sided with the South. After the fall of Fort Sumter, the local bishop, a rabid secessionist, led Catholics in the celebration by singing a Latin hymn. A number of Confederate generals were Catholics, including James Longstreet and the Confederacy's first general, Pierre Toutant Gustave Beauregard. The secretary of the Navy, Stephen Mallory, was also a Catholic and a member of Jefferson Davis's cabinet.

When federals occupied Natchez, Mississippi, they ordered all pastors and priests to pray for Abraham Lincoln, but Catholic Bishop William Henry Elder refused. He was briefly  imprisoned for his non-conformity and was heralded as a legend across the South. The most popular post-war poem among former Confederates was "The Conquered Banner." This poem -recited in southern schools for generations was composed by Catholic priest and Confederate army chaplain Abram Joseph Ryan.

Catholic priests made devotionals for the soldiers used by all denominations, and nuns served in confederate hospitals. Some Catholic Confederate chaplains could not stay out of the war; despite it being against canon law, John Bannon fired a cannon at the Yankee hordes. The similarities between traditional Catholicism and the South provided an "easy symbiosis" for the thousands of southern Catholic soldiers, writes Kraszewski. When the Confederacy sent Father John Bannon to Ireland, it was his view that devout Catholics of Europe could find in the Confederacy the remnant of Christendom. In the North, Bannon stated, one could only find puritans and anti-Catholic prejudice.

"Roman Catholics and Jews found an accepted place, sometimes a very successful place, in the South when such was unknown in the North....at the time of the war, a high proportion of American Catholics and Jews were found in the South and were loyal confederates. Nearly all Catholics and Jews elected to public office in the U.S. were in the South. The two most famous anti-Catholic incidents in the pre-war period took place in Boston and Philadelphia...no such incidents occurred in the South. The letters of Lincoln supporters are full of anti-Semitic comments, and , notoriously, General Grant was to banish Jews from the Union army lines."

-Clyde Wilson The Yankee Problem An American Dilemma Shotwell publishing 2016

Jews

Jews were clearly more accepted in the Southern states. Robert Rosen, in The Jewish Confederates, tells how the Southern Jewish population were among the most rabid secessionists. They were integrated into Confederate units, and some reached high ranks in the military, such as Col. Abraham C. Myers, quartermaster general of the Confederacy; Maj. Adolph Proskauer of the 12th Alabama; Maj. Alexander Hart of the Louisiana 5th; and Phoebe Levy Pember, chief matron at Richmond's Chimborazo Hospital, are some examples he gives. Judah Benjamin was a Senator from Louisiana before joining President Jefferson Davis' cabinet. He served as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State for the Confederacy. Rosen wrote, "the Confederate South was, contrary to popular belief, the exact opposite of the image of the Old South held by most contemporary Americans."

Union General U.S Grant gave General Order No. 11, expelling all Jews from his military district. He had earlier ordered a subordinate to "Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out." The following day he issued another command to "Give orders to all the conductors on the [rail] road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it; but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them." Grant said the black-market cotton exports were done "mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders." General Sherman wrote to the Union Army adjutant-general that "The country will swarm with dishonest Jews who will smuggle powder, pistols." And as with Jews and Catholics, so it was with Native Americans.

"In the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power…Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade…Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed ...The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government...the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August , in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes."

-Tahlequah, C. N., October 28, 1861. THOMAS PEGG, President National Committee. JOSHUA ROSS, Clerk National Committee. Concurred. LACY MOUSE, Speaker of Council. THOMAS B. WOLFE, Clerk Council. Approved. J.N.O. ROSS.

Native Americans

The most significant discrepancy in the treatment of minorities is given when we look at Native Americans. The majority of the "civilized" Native American tribes sided with the South during the war. General Stand Watie of the Cherokee was the last Confederate general to surrender on June 23, 1865. He was the only Native American to be promoted to general on either side of the war. Native American tribes sent a higher percentage of their population to war than any state in the Confederacy and lost a higher percentage than any southern state. No one was more devoted to the Southern cause, not South Carolina or Virginia. They sacrificed the greatest and held out the longest.

The Indian Territory mainly sided with the South and sent delegates to Richmond. Richmond sent government officials, food, money, and supplies to the Indian Territory to help and support them. The formation of an Indian State in the Confederacy was offered to the tribes if they desired it. However, the Confederacy gave them complete autonomy for their government and offered a postal service even if they remained autonomous.

"...the several Indian treaties that bound the Indian nations in an alliance with the seceded states, under the authority of the Confederate State Department.. an innovation, in fact, that marked the tremendous importance that the Confederate government attached to the Indian friendship. It was something that stood out in marked contrast to the indifference manifested at the moment by the authorities at Washington...The Confederacy was offering him [the Indian] political integrity and political equality."

-Annie Heloise Abel Ph.D. The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist an Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy Arthur H Clark Company Cleveland 1915

The Federals attacked and killed women and children of a neutral tribe during the war, driving even more support for the South. In response, the Confederacy sent financial support to displaced families under Union occupation. In General Stand Watie's Confederate Indians, Frank Cunningham quotes multiple tribal leaders' thankfulness for the treatment of their tribes by Richmond and President Davis.

Historian Annie Heloise Abel tells how it was John Calhoun and other Southern men who desired the entire west to be shut off from whites and to allow the Native Americans self-governance, "Southern politicians, after his time, became the chief advocates of Indian territorial integrity, the ones that pleaded most often and most noisily that guarantees to Indians be faithfully respected." As with Catholics, the tribes had more in common with the South in culture and institutions. As slave owners and planters, they tended to be agrarian. For example, on January 29, 1861, Arkansas governor Henry Rector wrote to John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, "Our people and yours are natural allies in war and friends in peace."

"On behalf of the Creek people...the cause of the South is our cause, her hopes our hopes, and whatever her misfortunes may be it shall be our pleasure to bear them patiently with her, even unto death. If she falls we fall, and if she prospers we only desire it to be our privilege to enjoy her prosperity….we are enrolling every able-bodied man in service for war."

-Samuel Checote, Creek Nation

Heneha Mekko, "Principal Chief of the Seminoles," said:

"The Confederate States have not deserted us, we have been provided for, our women and children are fed, our soldiers get all they should expect. The Government is engaged in a great war, she cannot do any more for us now then she is doing...assure the President the Seminoles are yet true and loyal. Their treaty stipulations are sacred. The destiny of your government shall be ours. If she falls we will go with her: if she triumphs no rejoicing will be more sincere than ours."

The western "wild" plains Native Americans did not side with the South, but still fought against the North. The North sent General Pope to deal with the "savages' 'like the Sioux. Lincoln signed off on the hanging of 38 Native Americans in 1862 in Minnesota.

Lincoln's attitude towards Native Americans might have been affected by an earlier time in his life. His close friend Ward Lamon tells of the great impact that the murder of Lincoln's grandfather by Native Americans had on the future president. Lincoln said, "The story of his death by the Indians, and of Uncle Mordecai, then fourteen years old, killing one of the Indians, is the legend more strongly than all others imprinted upon my mind and memory." Lincoln's uncle Mordecai "hated Indians ever after" and even was reputed to murder innocent Native Americans when he had the chance. Lamon tells us "Many years afterward, his neighbors believed that he was in the habit of following peaceable Native Americans as they passed through the settlements, to get surreptitious shots at them and it was no secret that he had killed more than one in that way." So it should not surprise us that aged 23, Abraham Lincoln volunteered for a chance to fight Native Americans in the Black Hawk War.

Attacks from the North

The North then attacked and kicked the wild plains Native Americans off their land in pursuit of a transcontinental railroad to bring their territory under the domain of the industrialists and capitalists. In their book The South Was Right!James and Walter Kennedy document numerous cases of northern abuses of minorities. Federal General Pope ordered that the Native Americans "Are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made." He declared, "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux." Professor Thomas DiLorenzo quotes Lincoln's friend Grenville Dodge, Union general and railroad icon, who suggested using captive Native Americans as forced labor (I thought Republicans did not like slavery- though perhaps it was only when they were not master) on the railroads.

Republicans did not care for Native American rights. In the Personal Memoirs of U.S Grant, among his ruminations on the consequences of the conflict was "It is probable that the Indians would have had control of these lands [west] for a century yet but for the war. We must conclude, therefore, that wars are not always evils unmixed with some good." So the taking of land from the Native Americans was such an excellent "good" that it helped justify the evils of the civil war to our former Republican President and civil war "hero."

In Nothing Like it in the World: The Men Who Built The Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869, Historian Stephen Ambrose quotes the Chicago Tribune newspaper as observing, "The railroad men...have an infallible remedy for the Indian trouble, that remedy is extermination. These men, most of them tender and gentle with the weak of their own race, speak with indifference of the wiping out of thousands of Papoos and Squaws." Ambrose then quotes General Sherman, "The more [Indians] we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of Paupers." Dodge said, "We've got to clear the dumb Indians out." Oliver Ames, President of the Union Pacific railroad, said, "I see nothing but extermination to the Indians as a result of their thieving disposition, and we shall probably have to come to this before we can run the [rail] road safely."

Before the war, northern abolitionist Republicans like William Seward had declared the removal of the Native Americans was necessary. Arthur Ferguson, Union Pacific Railroad surveyor, said, "I have no sympathy for the red devils…. May their dwelling places and habitations be destroyed. May the greedy crow hover over their silent corpses. May the coyote feast upon their stiff and festering carcasses." Drunk on industrial power, Sherman told the Native Americans, "We build iron roads, and you can't stop the locomotive any more than you can stop the sun or moon, and you must submit...we now offer you this, choose your homes, and live like white men, and we will help you all you want."

According to DiLorenzo in The Feds versus the Indians, "During an assault," Sherman instructed his troops, "the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." He chillingly referred to this policy in an 1867 letter to Grant as "the final solution to the Indian problem," a phrase Hitler invoked some 70 years later." DiLorenzo said Phil Sheridan and Sherman popularized the phrase "a good Indian is a dead Indian." Sherman's ultimate objective was to eliminate the tribes. "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux," Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant, "even to their extermination, men, women, and children." The Sioux must "feel the superior power of the Government."

The U.S. superintendent of Indian affairs, Clark Thompson, revealed the mindset of Republicans towards Native Americans and how to make them worship the same god [money] as the Yankees do.

"Many plans proposed to bring about a change of their habits, customs, and mode of living...his whole nature must be changed. He must have a white man's ambition, to be like him…to change the disposition of the Indian to one more mercenary and ambitious to obtain riches and teach him to value the position consequent upon the possession of riches."

-Clark W Thompson Superintendent Indian Affairs United States Congressional serial set, Volume 1117

The North could not allow anything or anyone, no matter what race, to get in its way of building an empire in the worship of its true god, progress. So, they would either exterminate or remake such culture that got in its way, either the South or the Native Americans. The South had experienced it from the Union and prophetically warned the Native Americans.

"Another, and perhaps the chief cause, is to get upon your rich lands and settle their squatters, who do not like to settle in slave States. They will settle upon your lands as fast as they choose, and the Northern people will force their Government to allow it. It is true they will allow your people small reserves—they give chiefs pretty large ones—but they will settle among you, overshadow you, and totally destroy the power of your chiefs and your nationality, and then trade your people out of the residue of their lands. Go North among the once powerful tribes of that country and see if you can find Indians living and enjoying power and property and liberty as do your people and the neighboring tribes from the South."

-Quoted in Annie Heloise Abel Ph.D. The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy Arthur H Clark Company Cleveland 1915

Distrust

It should be no wonder that the Native tribes distrusted the North and sided with the South when the war broke out.

"Resolved further.. We shall be left to follow the natural affections, education, institutions, and interests of our people, which indissolubly bind us in every way to the destiny of our neighbors and brethren of the Southern States upon whom we are confident we can rely for the preservation of our rights of life, liberty, and property, and the continuance of many acts of friendship, general counsel, and material support."

-Choctaws Council Resolutions February 7, 1861

The Native Americans, Jews, Catholics, and the South were diverse cultures that held to a live and let live attitude. They did not seek to conform each other to their image but allowed for diversity and self-governance. This was unlike the Yankees, who puritanically thought themselves superior to all and through military force, government coercion, sheer numbers, and forced indoctrination eradicated opposing cultures' ideologies and brought them all under its dominion. There no longer is any such thing as self-governance unless you are a disciple of the Yankee empire in America. This subjugation of opposing cultures and forced conformity seems a perfectly intolerant and discriminatory practice. While Cash is speaking of the South here, it equally applied to all non-conforming societies the Yankee empire came into contact with.

"The Civil War and Reconstruction represent in their primary aspect an attempt on the part of the Yankee to achieve by force what he had failed by political means: first, a free hand in the nation for the thievish aims of the tariff gang, and secondly, and far more fundamentally, the satisfaction of the instinctive urge of men in the mass to put down whatever differs from themselves—the will to make over the South in the prevailing American image and to sweep it into the main current of the nation."

-W. J. Cash The Mind of the South Vintage Books New York 1941

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

Napoleon's First Major Battlefield Defeat

The Battle of Aspern-Essling, fought on May 21nd and 22st, 1809 marked one of the most significant land engagements of the Napoleonic Wars and the first major setback for Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte on the battlefield.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of Essling, May 1809. By Fernand Cormon.

Taking place on the northern bank of the Danube River near Vienna, this confrontation was part of the War of the Fifth Coalition, wherein Austria, under the leadership of Archduke Charles, sought to challenge Napoleon's dominance in Europe. The battle demonstrated the growing capacity of the Austrian military to resist the previously unstoppable French Grande Armée.

Napoleon's strategic goal was to cross the Danube and strike decisively at the Austrian forces, effectively neutralizing their threat and consolidating French control over Central Europe. The crossing of the mighty river presented logistical challenges, requiring the construction of pontoon bridges. Despite the French emperor's reputation for meticulous planning and tactical brilliance, unforeseen complications and the resilience of the Austrian forces thwarted his ambitions.

Archduke Charles, leading the Austrian army, with his subordinate commanders capitalized on the vulnerabilities created by the French reliance on fragile pontoon bridges. The Austrians launched a surprise counteroffensive, targeting Napoleon's forces as they attempted to consolidate their position in the villages of Aspern and Essling.

Over two days, intense combat unfolded, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. While the French initially made gains, the destruction of their supply lines and bridges by Austrian forces turned the tide of the battle, forcing Napoleon to withdraw, a rare occurrence in his military career.

The battle's outcome was a psychological and strategic turning point. For the Austrians, it was a validation of their renewed efforts to oppose French hegemony. For Napoleon, the defeat underscored the risks of overextension and the challenges of managing a vast empire amidst persistent opposition. Aspern-Essling also highlighted the emergence of Archduke Charles as a capable commander and underscored the shifting dynamics of warfare in the Napoleonic era.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling would set the stage for further confrontations, most notably the Battle of Wagram in July 1809, a decisive yet costly victory for Emperor Napoleon's French and allied army. However, its immediate impact resonated as a demonstration of Napoleon's vulnerability and the fierce resistance of a reformed Austrian army.

The political and cultural lead-up to the battle

By 1809, Napoleon's grip on Europe was tightening. After numerous battlefield victories, his dominance was largely unchallenged. However, Austrian dissatisfaction with French hegemony and the territorial rearrangements of the Confederation of the Rhine led to a resurgence of resistance. Austrian reformers under Archduke Charles modernized their army, introducing conscription and improved training. Encouraged by Napoleon's focus on Spain and the perceived overstretch of French forces, Austria declared war in April 1809.

The Fifth Coalition War was characterized by Austria's attempt to rally German-speaking states to their cause and Napoleon's swift counteroffensive. The French Emperor sought to decisively crush Austrian resistance early to discourage other powers from joining the coalition.

Culturally, the war symbolized a clash of national pride. Austria, as an old European power, sought to restore its waning influence, while Napoleon aimed to consolidate his modern empire.

The strategic context

The Danube River was the lifeline of the theatre, serving as a critical supply route and barrier. Napoleon's strategy revolved around rapidly crossing the Danube to bring Archduke Charles to battle, using his signature approach of speed and decisive action to envelop and destroy the Austrian forces.

Archduke Charles, on the other hand, aimed to exploit Napoleon's reliance on rapid maneuvers. He sought to use the Danube as a defensive advantage, forcing Napoleon into a constrained engagement while leveraging Austria's numerical superiority.

The Commanders

Napoleon Bonaparte: The French Emperor's reputation as a military genius was unassailable by 1809. Known for his bold tactics and ability to adapt to battlefield conditions, Napoleon sought to secure yet another victory to maintain his aura of invincibility.

Archduke Charles of Austria: A reformer and tactician, Charles was Austria's most competent commander. Though often overshadowed by Napoleon, he was well-versed in defensive operations and had a deep understanding of the terrain.

The development of the battle

On the 20th of May, Napoleon initiated his plan to cross the Danube using pontoon bridges constructed by his engineers near the villages of Aspern and Essling. His goal was to establish a bridgehead on the northern bank, a vital step toward forcing the Austrians into a pitched battle. However, the Austrian army, aware of his movements, positioned itself strategically to counter this crossing.

Initial French success (May 21st, 1809)

Napoleon's forces crossed the river and established positions near Aspern and Essling. The French vanguard quickly pushed into Aspern, with fierce fighting erupting as Austrian troops counterattacked. By evening, the French had secured a tenuous foothold but faced relentless Austrian pressure.

Austrian resilience (May 22nd, 1809)

Overnight, the Austrians launched a determined assault on both villages, seeking to isolate the French forces. The Austrian artillery targeted the French pontoon bridges, severing Napoleon's critical supply line and reinforcements. This disruption stalled French momentum and left Napoleon unable to fully commit his reserves.

Throughout the day, the battle seesawed, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. Napoleon personally led counterattacks, attempting to retake Aspern and secure the river crossing, but Austrian resistance, bolstered by their superior numbers and entrenched positions, held firm.

By late afternoon, Napoleon realized his precarious situation. With his forces dangerously exposed and his supply line compromised, he ordered a retreat across the Danube, marking the first time he was forced to abandon a battlefield under direct opposition.

The influence and outcome of tactics

French tactics

Napoleon's strategy hinged on rapid crossing and overwhelming force, but his reliance on hastily constructed pontoon bridges proved a critical vulnerability. His characteristic use of concentrated artillery and massed infantry attacks faltered due to supply disruptions and Austrian counter-battery fire.

Austrian tactics

Archduke Charles's decision to engage the French immediately after their river crossing was pivotal. He leveraged his superior numbers and defensive positions to great effect. Austrian engineers and artillery played a crucial role, repeatedly targeting the French bridges and disrupting Napoleon's logistical base.

The Austrian use of flexible defensive lines and coordinated counterattacks demonstrated their improved tactical doctrine and underlined their determination to resist French dominance.

The aftermath

The Battle of Aspern-Essling was a pyrrhic victory for Austria. While they successfully halted Napoleon and inflicted heavy casualties (37,000 combined), they could not capitalize on their success in delivering a decisive blow. For Napoleon, the battle was a sobering experience that exposed vulnerabilities in his strategy and his army's logistical operations.

The immediate aftermath saw both sides preparing for the inevitable rematch. Just six weeks later, Napoleon reorganized his forces and decisively defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Wagram. However, Aspern-Essling tarnished his image of invincibility and emboldened resistance movements across Europe.

In conclusion, the Battle of Aspern-Essling stands as a defining moment in the Napoleonic Wars, a clash that tested the limits of Napoleon's strategic brilliance and Austria's resolve. While not a decisive strategic victory for either side, it marked a significant psychological shift in the war and the perception of Napoleon's invincibility on land.

For Austria, the battle symbolized the fruits of military reform and demonstrated that even Napoleon's formidable forces could be thwarted with preparation, determination, and tactical ingenuity. Archduke Charles's leadership, the precise targeting of French supply lines, and the Austrians' effective use of defensive positions and counterattacks revealed the vulnerabilities in Napoleon's reliance on speed and maneuver.

For Napoleon, Aspern-Essling was a sobering reminder of the risks inherent in overconfidence and the perils of logistical weakness. The loss of pontoon bridges and the resultant supply line collapse illustrated the growing complexity of sustaining a large, modern army in the field. While he would swiftly recover and triumph at Wagram, the psychological and symbolic implications of this defeat reverberated across Europe, inspiring his adversaries and energizing resistance movements.

Strategically, the battle highlighted the increasing role of engineering, logistics, and coordination in early 19th-century warfare. The lessons learned on both sides would shape subsequent engagements, influencing military thought and practices for years to come.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling is not merely a story of tactics and bloodshed but a tale of the evolving nature of war. It serves as a powerful reminder of the interplay between leadership, preparation, and adaptability, a narrative that continues to resonate in military studies and strategic planning to this day.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

U.S. Civil War Hats

The headgear worn by soldiers during the Civil War presents a fascinating topic. Before the adoption of metal helmets for cranial protection, hats played a significant role in denoting rank, indicating branch of service, and serving as a means of personal expression, as exemplified by the distinctive plume worn by JEB Stuart.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Stonewall Jackson in a forage cap.

Kepi & Forage Cap

The kepi had been the most common headgear in the French Army. Its predecessor originally appeared during the 1830s, in the course of the initial stages of the occupation of Algeria, as a series of various lightweight cane-framed cloth undress caps called casquette d’Afrique. These were intended as alternatives to the heavier, cloth-covered leather French Army shako. As a light and comfortable headdress, it was adopted by the metropolitan (French mainland) infantry regiments for service and daily wear, with the less practical shako being relegated to parade use.

Etymologically, the term is a loanword of French: képi, itself a re-spelled version of the Alemannic German: Käppi, a diminutive form of Kappe, meaning “cap”. Modern-day baseball caps are the direct descendant of kepis.

In 1852, a new soft cloth cap was introduced for the campaign and off-duty. Called bonnet de police à visière, this was the first proper model of the kepi. The visor was generally squarish in shape and oversized and was referred to as bec de canard (duck bill). This kepi had no chinstrap (jugulaire). Subsequent designs reduced the size of the cap and introduced chinstraps and buttons.

The kepi became well known outside France during the Crimean War and was subsequently adopted in various forms by many other armies (including the U.S. and Russia) during the 1860s and 1870s.

The kepi emerged as the quintessential hat associated with Union soldiers, largely due to the superior options available to their Southern counterparts. Characterized by its flat circular crown and a prominent visor, the kepi featured a leather or cloth peak and a chinstrap made of either leather or cord.

Among Union forces, a style often referred to as the McClellan cap, was prevalent, with officers frequently embellishing their caps in accordance with French fashion influences. This style had a flat top and squared visor.

The forage cap, or bummer cap, called the McDowell cap, had a curved top based on the model 1858 forage cap This shapeless design was particularly favored by the eastern Union army, while troops in the West tended to opt for broad-brimmed felt hats. Some southern troops also wore a forage cap, most notably Stonewall Jackson.

Regulations established by the U.S. Army mandated that insignia be affixed to the top of the cap, displaying the branch of service—whether infantry, cavalry, or artillery—at the center, with the company letter positioned above and the regimental number below. In 1863, the Army of the Potomac introduced the corps badge as a means to enhance troop morale, which was subsequently incorporated onto the cap. For infantry soldiers, a bugle horn was placed beneath the disk, featuring the regimental number inscribed within the horn, the company letter situated above it, and the corps badge positioned at the top. However, it was common for soldiers to lack this complete set of insignia, and at times, only the branch of service, company letter, or regimental number insignia was displayed. Additionally, some units opted for colored variations of these insignia.

In the Confederate army, a color-coding system was employed to differentiate between various branches of service. The infantry was represented by blue, the cavalry by yellow, and the artillery by red.

These were later changed to a thin band with the color of the branch wrapped around the base of the cap to identify the area of service. All uniforms regardless of being Union or Confederate had prominent markings on them which identified whether a soldier was an enlisted man or an officer.

Slouch Hat

The slouch hat is one of the most enduring icons of the Confederate soldier, ranking alongside his bedroll, shell jacket and pants cuffs tucked into his socks.  Indeed, the slouch hat came to be the quintessential American military campaign headgear by the end of the Civil War. The Confederate slouch hat was adopted for numerous reasons: it was well-liked, practical and available (when caps were not). Despite the regulation prescribing the French kepi-style cap for wear by all soldiers and officers, many were not able to obtain the cap.  They had to use the common citizen slouch hat. Moreover, the slouch hat was found to be more practical: it was comfortable and provided better protection against the elements.

The slouch hat is a wide-brimmed felt or cloth hat often, although not always, with a chinstrap. The name "slouch hat" refers to the fact that one side droops down as opposed to the other which is pinned against the side of the crown. The style is highly variable and personal, with various types of crowns and crown heights, brim widths and degrees of softness.

This style of hat has been worn for many hundreds of years, especially during the English Civil War during the 17th century when it became associated with the forces of King Charles I, the Cavaliers, but it was also fashionable for the aristocracy throughout Europe.

The slouch hat was introduced to this country by a spirited Hungarian patriot named Louis Kossuth. In 1852, Mr. Kossuth completed a speaking tour of our country where he sought and received a great deal of support for Hungarian liberties after his country had become dominated by the Czar of Russia. Louis Kossuth was described by William Cullen Bryant as a man who is “fearless, eloquent, large of heart and of mind, whose one thought is the salvation of oppressed Hungary, unfortunate, but undiscouraged, struck down in the battle of liberty, but great in defeat, and gathering strength for triumphs to come.” From a banquet in honor of Louis Kossuth with the Press of New York, December 9, 1851.

Hardee Hat

The Hardee hat, also known as the Model 1858 Dress Hat and nicknamed the "Jeff Davis", was the regulation dress hat for enlisted men in the Union Army. The Hardee hat was also worn by Confederate soldiers. However, most soldiers found the black felt hat to be too hot and heavy and preferred a forage cap or slouch hat.  The Hardee hat was worn most often by western Union troops, but also by the Iron Brigade, which were popularly known as "The Black Hats".

The hat was named after William J. Hardee, a career officer in the U.S. Army from 1838 until resigning his commission on January 31, 1861. Hardee was Commandant of Cadets at West Point from 1856 to 1860.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Images

McClellan cap.

Different hats.

Regimental Lt Colonel kepi.

Charles Darwin’s Life: The Well-Known – and the Not So Well-Known

Charles Darwin’s contribution to science stands virtually without peer.  He was a colossus in the field of evolutionary biology.  He was also a gentleman, a husband, and an invalid.   

Lyn Squire, author of Fatally Inferior (Level Best Books 2024 – Amazon US | Amazon UK), the second book in the Dunston Burnett Trilogy, fills in the gaps.

Charles Darwin with his eldest son William Darwin, circa 1842.

THE WELL-KNOWN

Everyone knows that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution stands as one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of scientific inquiry.  Darwin was a prolific writer completing more than a dozen major books in his seventy-three-year lifetime, but none as famous, revolutionary, impactful and enduring as On the Origin of Species published on November 24, 1859.

Darwin had long known how breeders improved their stock of race horses by the careful mating of their fastest animals.  This process of human selection could be seen in livestock, birds, fruits, vegetables, all designed to develop the most desired traits in each species.  Darwin wanted to know if Mother Nature had a similar mechanism.  The writings of economist Thomas Malthus provided a clue.  He argued that the innate tendency of humans to breed led to populations expanding beyond their means, necessitating a fight for survival.  Darwin had found the springboard for his monumental intellectual leap to the idea of natural selection.  Survival of the fittest!  One general law governing the evolution of all organic beings – multiply; vary; let the strongest live; let the weakest die. 

When it finally appeared in 1859, his theory of evolution was underpinned by a vast array of evidence.  Darwin had spent five years aboard HMS Beagle collecting specimens throughout the Galapagos archipelago, and then another twenty-three years compiling observations from around the world and conducting his own experiments before he felt his life’s work was ready for public scrutiny.   As Darwin said in his autobiography, “science consists in grouping facts so that general laws or conclusions may be drawn from them.”

THE NOT SO WELL-KNOWN

Many of those aware of Darwin’s contribution to our understanding of evolution may know little else about the man.  Other aspects of his life, however, shed light on his research and are of interest in their own right.  The three selected here are: the unsparing criticism of his writings; his marriage; and his chronic illness.

Criticism

Publication of On the Origin of Species caused an uproar throughout England.  Battle lines were quickly drawn between the new breed of fact-based researchers who readily embraced Darwin’s ground-breaking thesis, and the old guard of religious traditionalists with their unshakeable belief in the Bible’s account of God’s creation of man.  This was science pitted against religion in a life and death battle for the minds and souls of mankind.  Darwin was bombarded with scathing reviews in academic journals, blistering editorials in the leading newspapers and crude cartoons in the cheaper broadsheets. 

The Great Debate held in Oxford barely six months after the book’s appearance, illustrates the ugly nature of the clash between firm-in-their-belief theologians and Darwin’s band of truth-seeking scientists.  Both factions behaved in a most unbecoming manner with tasteless taunts and simian slurs from one side answered by childish name-calling and anti-church abuse from the other.  The city of dreaming spires was rocked to the core, buzzing with increasingly far-fetched accounts of the opening salvos in what, from then on, was all-out war.

Darwin, though, was a gentleman and a scholar from his time at Christ’s College, Cambridge to his later years at Down House, his home in Kent, and often chose dignified silence over open warfare in press or person.  In this he was fortunate in having Thomas Huxley, a brash but brilliant comparative anatomist, lead the charge in Darwin’s defense.  Huxley even described himself as Darwin’s “bulldog”.  After an offensive question addressed to him by Bishop Wilberforce at the Oxford debate, he famously replied with words to the effect that he, Huxley, would rather be an ape than a bishop. 

Even mild-mannered Darwin sometimes expressed his displeasure and disappointment with his academic antagonists.  St. George Mivart, a young biologist, was one such.  He thoroughly savaged Darwin’s Descent of Man in the prestigious Quarterly Review.  Worse still, he ruthlessly criticised an innocuous article on divorce by Darwin’s son.  Darwin was furious.  As it happened, Mivart was seeking membership of the famous Athenaeum Club and Darwin and his supporters, all prominent members, scuttled his election.  A petty response, it might seem, but this was an attack on his family.

Marriage

Darwin had a long and happy marriage.  He and his wife, Emma, were, however, first cousins.  They had a common grandfather in the person of Josiah Wedgewood.  In the nineteenth century, the offspring of marriages between such close relatives were thought to suffer loss of vigour and even infertility, their frailties then passed on to future generations, the yet-to-be-born progeny already burdened by their inheritance. 

Darwin was aware from correspondence with stock breeders throughout England that continued inbreeding of domesticated animals affected the general health and fertility of subsequent generations.  But did the same law of nature apply to humans as was commonly thought?  That was what Darwin desperately wanted to know.  It is little wonder, then, that Darwin devoted so much time and effort to studying the effects of crossbreeding and inbreeding in plants and animals, and even canvassed, albeit unsuccessfully, for the inclusion in the 1871 population census of a question on the number of children born to parents who were first cousins.  Far from being just an intriguing line of scientific inquiry, this was, for Charles Darwin, something frighteningly personal.

Sadly, the Darwins lost three of their children – Mary, Anne and little Charles – in infancy.  Death had indeed been an all-too-frequent visitor to the Darwin household, but this was not uncommon for large families in the nineteenth century, and their remaining seven children reached maturity.  Of those, three had offspring, providing the Darwins with ten grandchildren.  Their fears had proven unfounded.

Illness

In youth, Darwin was a vigorous, healthy man.  For the forty years of his adult existence, however, he suffered from bouts of a never-fully-diagnosed, gastro-intestinal illness.  His “accursed stomach” as he called it, caused retching, flatulence, fatigue and vomiting to the point where he was obliged to keep a commode, hidden behind a partition, in his study.  (The visitor to Down House, only an hour and a half’s journey from Central London, can view the scientist’s carefully restored study, including the partition.)

Darwin consulted several different doctors and tried every conceivable treatment, some prescribed by respected professionals, others by practitioners little better than quacks.  He tried the water therapy offered at the Water Cure Establishment at Malvern which involved him being heated by a spirit lamp and then rubbed down with cold wet towels while his feet were immersed in a cold foot bath.  Then he moved on to Dr E.W. Lane’s Moor Park hydropathic establishment which was much closer to Down House.  And after that to the Wells House hydropathic establishment in Ilkley, West Yorkshire.  At best, these treatments provided temporary relief, but whether that was a direct result of the therapies or simply the passage of time and natural recuperation is difficult to say.  Either way, his suffering continued.

His chronic illness weighed on Darwin, as attested by its frequent mention in his autobiography.  It is a measure of the man, however, that towards the end of his personal account of his life, he was able to remark, perhaps wryly, that: “Even ill-health, though it has annihilated several years of my life, has saved me from the distractions of society and amusement.”

Other reading

The above not-so-well-known selections barely skim the surface.  If you wish to learn more about Darwin, an excellent source is the two-volume biography by Janet Browne, Voyaging and The Power of Place, published by Princeton University Press in 1995 and 2002 respectively.  You will find a more personal, fascinating and shorter account of his life in The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, first published by Collins (London) in 1958. 

Lyn Squire is the author of Fatally Inferior (Level Best Books, December 2024 - Amazon US | Amazon UK), a story of revenge set against the uproar that greeted publication of On the Origin of Species. Mr. Squire’s first novel in the Dunston Burnett Trilogy, Immortalised to Death (2023), was a First Place Category Winner in the 2023 Chanticleer International Book Awards.  His next book, The Séance of Murder, scheduled for publication in 2025 will complete the trilogy.

U.S. Civil War Uniforms

The Civil War was fought by the opposing forces of the Union and the Confederacy, often referred to by their respective colors, the Blue and the Gray. Following the Battle of First Manassas, it became evident to both factions that the ability to distinguish between allies and adversaries was essential for effective military operations. This realization prompted the need for a standardized uniform that could be easily recognized at a glance. While some differentiation based on the branch of service was advantageous, the primary requirement was that the colors worn by the soldiers be immediately identifiable.

This necessity ultimately led the Union to adopt dark blue uniforms, while the Confederacy opted for light gray. However, this is an oversimplification: Confederate soldiers primarily wore butternut, a shade of light brown, rather than gray. Moreover, in the early stages of the war, the Union army showcased a diverse array of uniforms, featuring various colors and styles, including Zouave attire, cadet gray, and a combination of both light and dark blue.

At this stage of warfare, brightly colored uniforms were preferred by armies to allow identification on smoke-filled battlefields. There was no need for camouflage in these battles, but there was a heavy insistence on unit cohesion. In that sense, style followed functionality, as clothes typically do.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Robert E. Lee in color.

Confederate Soldiers’ Uniforms

At the onset of the conflict, soldiers of the Confederacy donned garments sourced from their homes and crafted from homespun materials. As the availability of fabric diminished, the primary supply of uniforms for Confederate troops came from Union uniforms that had been captured. These dark blue uniforms were boiled in a mixture containing walnut hulls, acorns, and lye, which resulted in a light tan hue that the Confederates referred to as “butternut.” Additionally, weathered and faded gray uniforms also adopted a light brownish tint.

In the initial stages of the conflict, many uniforms were adapted from those of state militias, which had their own designated uniforms. During the early confrontations, certain Confederate units donned dark blue uniforms, leading to frequent misidentification on the battlefield as they were often confused with Union forces.

The establishment of the depot system in early 1862 marked a significant shift, as it facilitated the mass production and distribution of uniforms to the troops. Before this development, the "commutation system" was in effect, allowing soldiers the option to have their uniforms tailored according to the new regulations set forth by the Confederate States of America, with the assurance of reimbursement from the Confederate government. The move towards mass production not only streamlined the process of outfitting soldiers but also reflected the growing logistical capabilities of the Confederate forces as the war progressed.

The choice of gray for Confederate uniforms was influenced by the cost-effectiveness of gray dye production. Furthermore, the typical uniform color for state militias was a variant of cadet gray, which proved unsuitable for combat due to its bright blue-gray tones that easily revealed a soldier's position. In contrast, generals were not bound by such concerns and often wore elegant gray uniforms that they acquired at their own expense.

Contrary to the common belief that gray uniforms became less common in the Confederate army as the war progressed, the reality was quite the opposite. In 1863, the Confederacy began to procure ready-made uniforms from manufacturers located in England and Ireland. Among these suppliers, Peter Tait & Company of Ireland emerged as a significant uniform producer, successfully navigating the Union blockade to deliver their products to the Confederate forces.

The Confederacy had an ample supply of cotton for the production of uniforms; however, they also utilized wool and denim. Despite this variety, they lacked the resources to manufacture uniforms in the same large quantities as the Union. Consequently, Confederate uniforms often appeared different from each other, resulting in soldiers who frequently presented a diverse and mismatched appearance.

There are few photographs of Confederate soldiers that were taken in the field, as opposed to a studio. Perhaps the most famous photograph from the Civil War period is the image of three soldiers standing near a pile of lumber and a worn wagon taken soon after the Battle of Gettysburg. Scratched into the surface of one half of the stereo glass negative is written “rebel prisoners behind their breastwork.”  It was not published in the August 22, 1863 Harper’s Weekly issue that did feature 11 engravings of Mathew Brady’s other photographs

A closer look at their uniforms reveals the soldiers to be much better dressed than tradition would have it. According to legend, the Battle of Gettysburg began when barefoot Confederates entered the town looking for shoes. But historian Richard Pougher has used this photograph as evidence that "the common Confederate soldier in the Army of Northern Virginia was well dressed in Southern military uniforms, well-shod, and well accoutered … He was not the ragged, barefoot, poorly equipped individual in nondescript mix-and-match clothing so many have come to see him as."

Union Soldiers’ Uniforms

Since the Revolutionary War, American infantry has worn dark blue coats to distinguish themselves from the British Redcoats. During the Mexican War, these coats were complemented by pale blue trousers. However, with the onset of the Civil War and the need for mass production, the uniformity of dark blue became prevalent. The specific shade of blue used was known as Barlow’s indigo blue. Before the late 19th century, when Prussia perfected the mass production of inexpensive chemical dyes, natural indigo was significantly more costly than gray dyes.

Interestingly, the majority of indigo production occurred in the southern states, which led the Union forces to temporarily utilize logwood dyes. These dyes had the unfortunate tendency to turn brown when exposed to sunlight, resulting in many preserved uniforms featuring brown threads. The Union continued to rely on logwood for dyeing threads and other less expensive materials, as producing these dyes in the South was challenging due to resource limitations. Consequently, the darker blue-gray hue became synonymous with Confederate gray, as it was more readily available due to the blockade.

The factories in the Northern states possessed significant production capabilities, enabling them to manufacture high-quality wool uniforms for their military personnel. The soldiers of the United States were uniformly attired, presenting a cohesive appearance that reflected their well-organized outfitting. Union soldiers were equipped with a belt that secured various essential items, including a cap box, cartridge box, bayonet with scabbard, canteen, and a blanket roll containing a wool blanket, a shelter half, and a rubber blanket along with a poncho.

Zouaves

At the beginning of the war,  volunteer militias tried to establish unique uniforms that would project a sense of flair and distinction. Some of the Northern militias chose to adopt elaborate red coats and trousers, drawing inspiration from the famed Zouave fighters of North Africa, recognized for their intricate uniforms embellished with tassels and their unconventional combat strategies. These elite units utilized tactics akin to light infantry, characterized by open formations, prone firing, and swift maneuvers. However, as the war continued, these specialized Zouave units gradually evolved into standard army formations, resulting in a loss of their distinctive characteristics.

The Union Army boasted over seventy Zouave regiments, while the Confederacy maintained approximately twenty-five Zouave companies throughout the war. Ironically, the uniforms of the Zouaves were considered "nonuniform," as their procurement was neither straightforward nor cost-effective. Each regiment sported an oriental style of dress, yet the uniforms exhibited considerable variation due to the availability of materials and the preferences of commanding officers. Generally, the attire of the Zouave regiments bore a resemblance to that of the French Zouaves.

Other special units with distinctive uniforms included: Berdan’s sharpshooters wore green uniforms with matte buttons (to prevent glare); the 39th New York Infantry called the Garibaldi Guard wore puffy red shirts like Italian soldiers; and the New York 79th called the Highland Guard wore plaid clothes and cap to simulate Scottish Highlanders.

Generals and Other Officers

Confederate officers initially procured their uniforms through individual purchases, which were custom-tailored until the issuance of General Order 28 on March 6, 1864. This order permitted them to acquire uniforms from the same suppliers as the enlisted troops, and at cost. As a result, the uniforms reflected a range of personal styles: General Lee, representing the upper class, opted for the finest materials and craftsmanship, while General Pickett showcased a more flamboyant and distinctive appearance.

The insignia on the upright collar of full generals, lieutenant generals, major generals, and brigadier generals featured three stars embroidered in gold within a decorative wreath, with the central star being slightly larger than the others. While the collar insignia did not indicate the specific rank of the officer, the overcoats provided some distinction; major generals and lieutenant generals displayed two rows of nine buttons arranged in groups of three, whereas brigadier generals had two rows of eight buttons organized in pairs.

Buttons

Civil War Uniforms identified individual soldiers and the units they belonged to. Identification included buttons, colors, and rank markings.

Civil War buttons.

For the ranks of Second Lieutenants, First Lieutenants, and Captains, the uniform consisted of a single-breasted frock coat adorned with nine uniformly spaced buttons along the front, mirroring the design worn by enlisted personnel. The cuffs of enlisted uniforms featured two small buttons accompanied by an inverted chevron in the respective branch color, whereas officers' cuffs displayed three small buttons without any chevron.

Higher-ranking officers, including Majors, Lieutenant Colonels, and Colonels, donned a double-breasted frock coat characterized by seven evenly spaced buttons on each row. Brigadier Generals wore a similar double-breasted coat, but with eight buttons arranged in pairs. Major Generals, Major General Commanding, and Lieutenant Generals all shared the same style, featuring a double-breasted frock coat with nine buttons grouped in threes, along with three small cuff buttons and cuffs made of dark blue velvet.

Individuality

Union officers had to purchase their uniforms. Many field leaders by 1864 went with private purchase sack coats for comfort and because they would be cheaper to replace than frock coats, which required a lot of hand sewing and detail work. Many line and field grade officers by 1864 were also wearing subdued rank rather than shoulder straps. Subdued rank consists of merely the rank insignia sewn on the shoulders or even on the collar of a private purchase sack coat.

This fascinating photograph of II Corps leadership shows how different officers chose their individual styles. General Winfield Scott Hancock is shown with his 3 division commanders in the Wilderness, in May 1864. Hancock is seated still recuperating from his wound at Gettysburg. To the left is Maj Gen Francis Barlow is wearing his trademark checkered flannel lumberjack shirt with an open uniform coat. Note too the length of his sword: he carried an enlisted man’s cavalry saber.. To his left is Major General David Birney, and General John Gibbon. Gibbon is wearing  a regulation sack coat. Hancock and Birney are wearing the regulation Major General frock coat.

The general dress of Barlow is interesting and stylish, His coat is a 9 button jacket left open, and his trademark plaid shirt with a tie. The important feature of the plaid shirt is the presence of a white collar, which came with white cuffs, so when the jacket is buttoned it appears that he is wearing a white shirt., the color of a gentleman. He has the standing collar turned down and the front lapelled out, which was a common fashion in both armies at the time. Regulation called for ties at all times, and all 4 officers are wearing one. The only time that a tie could be omitted is if the officer is wearing a vest, but Barlow did both.

Barlow is also wearing an enlisted cavalry saber, while Gibbon wears the Model 1861 Staff Officer sword. Both wear their sword belt under their coats, with Barlow wearing what appears to be a standard issue belt. Birney is probably wearing, a Generals Officer belt, and over his frock per regulation. Hancock doesn’t appear to be wearing a belt at all, and most likely grabbed his sword for the photo op.

If the jacket doesn't have hooks or pillows on the back to support the saber belt at the true waist, then the common practice was to wear it around the waistband of the trouser, for support.

References

Lloyd W Klein The Blue and the Gray. Rebellion Research.  https://www.rebellionresearch.com/the-blue-and-the-gray

https://www.civilwaracademy.com/civil-war-uniform

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/american-civil-war/zouave-regiments-civil-war.html

https://howardlanham.tripod.com/linkgr5/link221.html

Image Gallery

Union soldier uniforms.

Colonel Rush Hawkins in the 9th Hawkins Zouaves uniform.

Major General George Pickett.

Top Row: Lieutenant, Major General, Brigadier General, Colonel

Bottom Photograph: Standing are lieutenants (single row of buttons). Seated are a brig gen, 2 colonels, and probably 2 captains. The man with his arms folded, can’t tell.

African Americans who Supported the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War

In spite of the Confederacy’s desire to preserve slavery, a number of African Americans actually supported the Confederates during the U.S. Civil War. Here, Jeb Smith looks at a wide range of ways that African Americans supported the Confederacy from financial support to the military.

A picture of Marlboro Jones. He was an African-American servant to a white Confederate soldier.

"These African Americans were real fighting men whose combat performances should not be silenced out of respect for these brave men and their sacrifices, despite the vigorous organized effort of today's politically driven historians and other black confederate deniers." 

-Phillip Thomas Tucker Blacks in Grey Uniforms A New Look at the South's Most Forgotten Combat Troops 1861-1865, America Through Time 2019 

"I myself have collected over 1,400 newspaper articles on this subject published between 1861 and 1865. That's a lot of ink spilled over something that some today call a "myth." You will find that these activist historians are not telling you the entire story." 

-Shane Anderson Black Southern Support for Secession and War the Abbeville Institute July 22, 2019 

The existence of black confederates is a debated and controversial subject. A search of the internet will show no shortage of articles, blogs, and videos of radical pro-North author's claiming black confederates are a "myth." They ask why a Southern African American would defend the Confederacy when blacks were treated horribly; rather they desired to run into the arms of the first white Yankee savior they saw. After all, the war was over slavery- the North fighting to liberate the slaves and the South to preserve the institution so southern blacks would jump at the chance to help the North and overthrow their racist masters.  

If anything, I am attempting to show that the winner wrote the history. If the South did not fight to preserve slavery, if the North did not fight to free the slaves, and if slaves were generally well treated and content, blacks supporting the Southern cause and their homeland, friends, and family should not surprise us. Some, for political purposes, seek to deny that blacks willingly sided with the South. Why should we allow these modern whites to tell us who blacks were allowed to support? 

Pro-north authors such as Eric Foner and Kevin Levin will argue that it is a myth that hundreds of thousands of blacks served in the confederate army as armed soldiers. These authors have set up a straw man to knockdown since it is easy to show hundreds of thousands of blacks were not soldiers. They can then ridicule "lost cause" authors and the sons of confederate veterans for claims of hundreds of thousands of black confederates. All in the hopes of disqualifying any other documentation of black confederates. Yet, I have noticed that even those who claim black confederates are a myth will simultaneously admit blacks served in the southern armies. In the live stream conversation Fighting for Freedom the Civil War and its Legacies, Eric Foner said, "There is no question that some small number of African Americans did volunteer and serve in confederate armies." 

Further, having searched the internet, including the hated Sons of Confederate Veterans, and having read many "lost cause" books on the subject, I can say no one claims hundreds of thousands of blacks fought as soldiers for the Confederacy. The Sons of Confederate Veterans website, in the article The Role of Black Soldiers in the Confederate Army, reads, "There was between 50,000 to 100,000 blacks that served in the Confederate Army as cooks, blacksmiths, and yes, even soldiers. "The majority is in the noncombatant form. On every estimate I have read, they always classify noncombatant services as cooks, musicians, etc., as those counted in the estimates.

As modern statists, Foner and Levin count only federally recognized soldiers and then feel free to dismiss the claims of large numbers of southern black soldiers. If cooks, musicians, and those forced into service do not count as actual soldiers, then the southern and northern servicemen drafted (white and black) are not actual soldiers. And since the vast majority of soldiers, North and South, were state volunteers, they were not actual soldiers either, according to these authors. They must fight only for the master, the federal government, to be "true" soldiers. 

One argument presented to deny black confederates is to tell us the many observations of thousands of blacks in service in the southern armies were of noncombatant form. This, of course, is often true. However, a great many observed soldiers as well. The logic they use to counter this is that these observers must be incorrect since the Confederacy (federal) did not approve blacks until late in the war. Once more, only federally recognized soldiers are "true" soldiers in their minds. So when we do see these armed black confederates, these are not "real soldiers" since the Confederacy does not recognize them.

These historians are coming from our modern nationalistic views and looking back to antebellum America. The federal government education had raised them, so it was hard for them to understand the time when the states had authority or where federal law did not control them. Thus only federal soldiers count in their minds, and any documents that say otherwise must be declared false. States or individuals could not have equipped slaves since the federal did not. Thus in Levin's mind, the fact that Confederate General Cleburne and other confederates pushed to arm slaves as Confederate [federal] recognized soldiers in 1864 proves that there were no black soldiers in the Confederacy before this time!!! Otherwise, why push for federally recognized soldiers in 1864?

One argument used by Levin is to point out Southerners' resistance to arming large numbers of slaves and the fear of them running away to northern lines. At most, it only proves that many masters feared losing their property and the loyalty of slaves. Believing not all slaves were or would be loyal to the South. Northern whites had the same fears of arming blacks. And these fears did play a role in why the federal arming of slaves in the Confederacy took so long. However, this does not show that owners and local authorities did not arm southern blacks. 

Levin also points out that Black Confederate soldiers were little known before the internet and that the Sons of Confederate Veterans initiated the recent popularity of the subject in response to the famous movie Roots in the 1970s. Even if this is true, that does not refute that black confederates were a historical reality. If a popular movie that influences public perception is released on any subject, there is usually a backlash from the other side wishing to give a fuller , more accurate portrayal. Because Roots portrayed blacks as heavily mistreated, it is not surprising that in response, the SCV would look through history and use examples to counter. To remove it from a Civil War context, transubstantiation was declared Catholic dogma at Trent in 1551. But this does not prove it was a 16th-century invention; it was the majority opinion down through Christian history, and had been official doctrine since the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. It was declared dogma in response to the early Reformation denial of the teaching. Likewise, the increase in awareness and books on black confederates is in response to the internet and, as Levin said, Roots. 

Very few of these arguments are about historical data. If you want to see the role of presuppositions and imaginative ways in which we are to "properly" understand newspaper photos and various other examples of black confederates, watch Kevin Levin's speech Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War's Most Persistent Myth at the US National Archives. One will find politics, philosophy, and worldview are far more important than historical data. If these authors wish only to prove that hundreds of thousands of blacks did not willingly serve the federal government of the Confederacy, then I think they will find no one will object. 

However, I define a soldier as one who willingly took up arms for the Confederacy or fought under a Confederate general regardless of federal recognition. In other words, state militia and individuals are actual soldiers. The Confederacy left it up to the states to decide if slaves were to fight as soldiers. If the South objected to the federal government's involvement with slave property in the old Union, why would they allow the confederate government to do the same in the South? So slaves' involvement was up to the state and, more importantly, the slave and master. Free blacks were also left to local control. 

"Even before the opening of the conflict, Southerners began to enroll free blacks for service with the state militias, sometimes by state law or by purely local action. The use of free blacks in the military was varied, as they saw service as laborers, support staff or in rare instances as soldiers." 

-Frank Edward Deserino University College London A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment to the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of London Department of History University College London July 2001

This is not intended to show a vast treasure of previously unknown material but as a summary of some of the findings of historians on the subject of black confederates that the general public does not encounter. Firstly, we will look at some examples of how southern blacks supported the Confederacy.

Southern Patriots

"About sixty free negroes volunteered and went down to Fort Macon to do battle for their country, while another gave twenty-five dollars cash to help support the war; and still another, who is a poor man, having just arrived at our wharf with a load of wood for sale, delivered it up to the town auctioneer, with a request to sell it and appropriate it in the same way." 

– Richmond Daily Dispatch, April 19, 1861 

Just as John Brown was mistaken when he believed slaves would join him in revolt against the South, the abolitionists also predicted massive slave revolts during the war. Instead, it could be argued that Southern blacks sided with their own country. In Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees, Ervin Jordan wrote that "Black confederate loyalty was more widespread than American historians has acknowledged." And while blacks who volunteered for the Union often had to be protected from whites, Southern blacks needed no such protection. Southerners were excited to have blacks volunteer.

"The free negroes of New Orleans, La., held a public meeting and began the organization of a battalion, with officers of their own race, with the approval of the State government, which commissioned their negro officers. When the Louisiana militia was reviewed, the Native Guards (negro) made up, in part, the first division of the State troops. Elated at the success of being first to place negroes in the field together with white troops, the commanding general sent the news over the wires to the jubilant confederacy: "New Orlean, November 23,1861. "Over 28,000 troops were reviewed today by Governor Moore, Major-General Lovell and Brigadier-General Ruggles. The line was over seven miles long; one regiment comprised 1,400 free colored men."

 -Joseph T Wilson The Black Phalanx African American Soldiers in the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the Civil War Da Capo Press New York 1994

Tens of thousands of Southern blacks, both slave and free, supported the confederate cause. Many southern blacks wanted to defend their country from the Yankee invaders. Many enslaved blacks had deep loyalty and family ties with their masters and followed them off to war. While it might be hard for some to believe today, many African American slaves and slave owners wanted slavery to continue and fought to protect the institution. In The Negro in the South, Booker T Washington writes, "A few colored men, it is said, were actually enrolled and enlisted as soldiers in the confederate army, fighting for their own continued enslavement."

"One may get the idea, from what I have said, that there was bitter feeling toward the white people on the part of my race, because of the fact that most of the white population was away fighting in a war which would result in keeping the Negro in slavery if the South was successful. In the case of the slaves on our place this was not true, and it was not true of any large portion of the slave population in the South where the Negro was treated with anything like decency." 

-Booker T Washington Up From Slavery Value Classics Reprint 1901 

As slave owners, many blacks defended slavery as an institution vital to their financial well-being. One Union soldier described a free black church as "Half-crazed black secessionists." Wealthy colored plantation owners such as South Carolina's William Ellison donated large sums of money to the Confederacy and bought confederate bonds and treasury notes in support. Ellison stopped growing cotton and instead grew food to help feed the confederate armies. Ellison's grandson John Buckner volunteered and fought for the 1st South Carolina artillery and helped defend Ft Wagner from the famous assault made by the 54th Massachusetts colored regiment. 

In the summer of 1861, The Winston Salem NC newspaper, People’s Press, reported that "fifteen free men of color volunteered for state service" and that they were in fine spirits and wore a "We will die for the South emblem." In New Bern, "fifteen to twenty free Negros came forward to volunteer their service to defend the city." A newspaper in Lynchburg, Virginia, reported on the 70 free blacks who enlisted to defend Virginia "Three cheers for the patriotic Negros of Lynchburg." 

Historian Phillip Tucker quotes a statement by the free mulatto population of South Carolina "Our allegiance is due to SO Ca. and in her defense, we are willing to offer up our lives, and all that is dear to us." And on March 21, 1863, the Nashville Daily Union Tennessee reported, "Negro rebel Cavalry pickets on the south bank of the Rappahannock below Fredericksburg shows that negroes are ready enough to serve masters on the field, and that the rebels are ready enough to make use of them serve as common soldiers...these negroes are well in the service, as in their sympathy, of the south."

Abolitionist Horace Greeley published The American Conflict in 1866, and he quotes the following wartime newspapers reporting on black patriotism in the South. "A Washington dispatch to The Evening Post (New York), about this time, set forth that—"A gentleman from Charleston says that everything there betokens active preparations for fight…negroes busy in building batteries, so far from inclining to insurrection, were grinning from ear to ear at tile prospect of shooting the Yankees." The Charleston Mercury of January 3 said: "We learn that 150 able-bodied free colored men of Charleston, yesterday offered their services gratuitously to the Governor, to hasten forward the important work of throwing up redoubts wherever needed along our coast."  The Memphis Avalanche joyously proclaimed that - a procession of several hundred stout negro men, members of the "domestic institution," marched through our streets yesterday in military order, under the command of Confederate officers. They were all armed and equipped with shovels, axes, blankets, etc. A merrier set was never seen. They were brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs."

"About fifty free negroes in Amelia county have offered themselves to the Government for any service. In our neighboring city of Petersburg, two hundred free negroes offered for any work that might be assigned to them, either to fight under white officers, dig ditches, or anything that could show their desire to serve Old Virginia. In the same city, a negro hackman came to his master, and insisted, with tears in his eyes, that he should accept all his savings, $100, to help equip the volunteers. – The free negroes of Chesterfield have made a similar proposition. Such is the spirit, among bond and free, through the whole of the State." 

 – The Daily Dispatch, April 25, 1861, Quoted in Shane Anderson Black Southern Support for Secession and War Abbeville Institute July 22, 2019

Financial Support

Many blacks supported the Confederacy in a non-military capacity, and "enthusiasm with which many blacks endorsed secession" was widespread. Large-scale demonstrations of blacks were held in Petersburg and New Orleans. In Petersburg, blacks offered to construct fortifications for the Confederacy, telling the mayor of Petersburg:

"We are willing to aid Virginians cause to the utmost extent of our ability….there is not an unwilling heart among us." Charles Tinsley, Spokesman for Petersburg free blacks 1861. When handed a confederate flag he said "I could feel no greater pride."

 - Mrs J Blakeslee Frost The Rebellion in the United States or the war of  1861 Hartford, CT: Published by the Author, 1862

Blacks in Vicksburg, Mississippi, donated $1,000 to the war effort. In General Stand Watie's Confederate Indians, Frank Cunningham tells how it became custom for slaves to hold balls and concerts to give money to the war effort in Arkansas. Free and slave negroes gave a ball at 50 cents ahead for support for the Confederacy and General Hindman of Arkansas, who stated the local blacks "Have displayed much loyalty and patriotism in their donations to the confederate cause." Cunningham also tells of General Albert Pike's slave Brutus, who kept $63,000 safe from the federals during the battle at Pea Ridge. He returned to his master, who gave him his freedom in payment, but Brutus did not accept it and served General Pike instead. James Muschett, a free black store owner in Virginia, donated food, clothes, and blacksmith services to the confederate government. Later he was imprisoned by the Union for being a spy and a confederate sympathizer. 

J K Obatala writes about a slave named Henry Jones who donated $465 in gold to the Confederate government, and the Union Milledgeville, Georgia, on August 26, 1863, reported on the balls all over the South where blacks were donating large sums of money to the cause. In The Unlikely Story of Blacks Who Were Loyal to Dixie. Obatala writes, "Many slaves made financial and material contributions to the Confederacy. In Alabama, William Yancy's slaves brought $60 worth of watermelons to Montgomery for the soldiers." Historian E Merton Coulter wrote, "It became custom for slaves to hold balls and concerts and give the money...to aid soldiers." These were not isolated incidents but common actions throughout the South.

The "Confederate Ethiopian Serenaders" singers used all their funds to finance gunboats and munitions for the Confederacy. Horace King of Alabama gave clothes to soldiers. Just two months before Appomattox, blacks gave dinner to confederate soldiers in Louisburg, Virginia. A Fairfax County free black sold 28 acres of land and donated the money to the defense of Virginia. During the war, blacks gave to help build a monument for Stonewall Jackson. Former North Carolina slave David Blunt said, "Yes mam, de days on de plantation wuz de happy days..he hated de yankees for killing Massa Tom. In fact, we all hated de Yankees." It seems not to have been uncommon for blacks to side with the South.

"All de slaves hate de Yankees an when de southern soldiers came late in de night all de ******* got out of de bed an holdin torches high dey march behin de soldiers, all of dem singin We'll hang Abe Lincoln on de Sour Apple Tree. yes mam, dey wuz sorry dat dey wuz free an' dey ain't got no reason to be glad, case dey wuz happier den dan now." 

 - Alice Baugh North Carolina Slave Narratives, reminiscing about her enslaved mother’s Stories

"The consequential manner of the negro, and the supreme contempt with which he spoke to his prisoner, were most amusing. This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee soldier through a Northern village, alone and of his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist. Nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which the numerous negroes with the Southern armies speak of their liberators." 

-Lt.-Colonel Arthur J. Fremantle, Three Months in the Southern States 1864

Information From Black Civilians

Southern blacks helped spread vital information to confederates or acted as spies. Former Arkansas Slave James Gill, a young boy at the time, said of his family "Us was Confedrits all de while...but de Yankees, dey didn’ know dat we was Confedrits." Slave Martin Robinson was hanged for falsely leading the federal troops the wrong way during the Kilpatrick- Dahlgren raid in 64. Slaves acting as spies for the South was so common that Union General Halleck gave his "General order number three" that disallowed any blacks into the federal lines because blacks were acting as runaway slaves but, in reality, were southern spies who gave vital information back to the Confederates. On November 20, 1861, Major-General Halleck wrote, "It has been represented that important information respecting the numbers and condition of our forces is conveyed to the enemy by means of fugitive slaves who are admitted within our lines. In order to remedy this evil it is directed that no such person be hereafter permitted to enter the lines of any camp or of any forces on the march and that any now within such lines be immediately excluded therefrom." 

Slave Burrel Hemphill refused to give information on his master's hidden money and silverware, so Sherman’s men tied a rope to his ankle and dragged him back and forth by a horse until he died, still never saying a word. Federal soldiers after Bull Run were too trusting of southern blacks when they asked slaves for food; instead, the slaves brought them to confederate lines, and they were taken prisoner. In Thomas Jordan and J.P Pryors The Campaigns of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the authors tell of a local negro who helped Forrest capture federal cavalry with information helpful to confederates. Another local black helped General Forrest by leading the federals into a confederate trap. In 1864 a free black named Goler misled union soldiers of his loyalty by providing food and shelter, only then to notify the confederates who captured the federal soldiers in the night. 

Georgia's governor Joseph E Brown is recorded in The Confederate Records of the State of Georgia Volume 2 stating "The country and the army are mainly dependent upon slave labor for support… it is impossible for the women and children to support themselves." With their masters away, slaves worked the plantations. Slaves' work kept the families from starving and allowed whites to fight the war. Federal General M.C Meigs wrote, "The labor of the colored man supports the rebel soldier, enables him to leave his plantation to meet our armies, builds his fortifications, cooks his food, and sometimes aids him on the picket by rare skill with the rifle." Slave Henry Warfield of Warren County, Mississippi, said, "Negroes were used by the Confederates long before they were used by the Union forces...and a large number of these fought by the side of their masters or made it possible for the master to fight." And as US Grant said, slaves "worked in the fields and took care of the families while white able bodied men were at the front fighting." 

Confederate General Richard Taylor [son of President Taylor] said: "Wives and little ones remained safe at home, surrounded by thousands of faithful slaves." With the men gone, slaves could have left for the North or refused to work, yet the overwhelming majority worked so the master could leave to fight. Often masters put a trusted slave in charge of the family while gone. In many ways, this trusted slave took over the master's role.

"In order to defend and protect the women and children who were left on the plantations when the white males went to war, the slaves would have laid down their lives. The slave who was selected to sleep in the" big house" during the absence of the males was considered to have the place of honour. Any one attempting to harm "young Mistress" or "old Mistress" during the night would have had to cross the dead body of the slave to do so...As a rule, not only did the members of my race entertain no feelings of bitterness against the whites before and during the war, but there are many instances of Negroes tenderly caring for their former masters and mistresses who for some reason have become poor and dependent since the war. I know of instances where the former masters of slaves have for years been supplied with money by their former slaves to keep them from suffering."                                           

-Booker T Washington Up from Slavery Value Classics Reprint 1901

After the South officially allowed federal black soldiers in the armies, Abraham Lincoln took the positives away from the action. He said, "There is one thing about negros fighting for the rebels... they cannot at the same time fight in their army, and stay home and make bread for them."

Another way southern blacks supported the cause was in what today is considered an unpardonable sin, moral support by waving the confederate flag. The Central Georgian, April 24, 1861, reported, "Secession flags dot the country along the route from Wilmington, and even the negroes waved the Confederate banner at the cars as they passed." 

Service in the Confederate Military

"The credit of having first conquered their prejudices against the employment of Blacks, even as soldiers, is fairly due to the Rebels." 

-Horace Greeley, The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860-65: Volume II Hartford. Published by O. D. Chase and Company. 1866

"Thousands of black southerners voluntarily supported the Confederate cause, ignoring an offer of federal freedom and, when allowed, to do so, took up arms to defend Dixie."

 -Charles Barrow, J.H Segars and R.B. Rosenburg, Black Confederates Pelican Publishing Company GretnaLouisiana 2004

Blacks, both free and slave, offered their service in the Confederate military. An estimated 58,000 blacks served in Confederate armies in a noncombatant role as cooks, musicians, chaplains, medics, scouts, or manual labor. Unlike the Federal army, Confederate armies gave equal pay to black service members (and soldiers) from the start of the war. The North did not do so until late in the war. Likewise, the southern blacks were in integrated units while the Federal troops segregated black union soldiers.

In Tenting Tonight, celebrated historian James Robertson writes, "Some slaves felt great loyalty to their masters and asked to be allowed to take up arms to defend what was, after all, their homeland too." Slave-owning Southern soldiers often brought along a slave with whom they had a close personal relationship. They had played together, ate together, worked together, and now wanted to defend their family and homeland together. Historian Phillip Tucker quotes from black confederate Tom Phelps who wrote home in June of 1861 "I will leave…today for a scout about the woods for yankees give my love to mistress and master…. Ps goodbye to the white folks until I killed a yankee." Azariah Bostwick of the 31st Georgia Infantry wrote home, "He [southern blacks] is no better to fight for his country than I am, my home is his." Even slaves not loyal to the South showed loyalty to their masters. A slave at Antietam risked his life to pull his master to safety before then running across the battlefield to the federal soldiers and freedom.

"A good many white confederates, who mostly hailed from the yeomentry, or small farmer class, actually considered these black confederates to be best friends and faithful companions and vice versa, because they knew each other so well, after having grown up together since childhood…A general familiar-like sentiment towards blacks was often demonstrated by white confederate soldiers, from lowly private to high ranking officers, and this has been fully revealed in their personal letters that were written from 1861-1865. After all blacks and whites shared a common southern culture and heritage, and especially in regard to love for their homeland that was now under threat." 

-Phillip Thomas Tucker Blacks in Grey Uniforms: A New Look at the South's Most Forgotten Combat Troops 1861-1865 America Through Time 2019 

When interviewed decades later, many servants often were proud of their master's ability to fight Yankees "Why mass can whale a dozen of em fore coffee is hot, fair fight." Often the personal slaves would serve as cooks or general servants, but sometimes, they would be armed and join in a fight in various circumstances, or be armed as soldiers by their masters. Isaac Stier of Mississippi said, "When de big war broke out I sho' stuck to my Marster an' I fit de Yankees same as he did. I went in de battles' long side of him an' us both fit under Marse Robert E. Lee." Herndon Bogan of North Carolina told his master, "Ide rather go wid you ter de war, please sur, massa, let me go wid you ter fight dem yanks... old massa got shot one night an pap grabs de gun fore hit de earth an lets de yanks have it." 

Ervin Jordan wrote in Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees, "Body servants fought for the south if given the chance and occasionally replaced fainthearted white rebel soldiers." He gives an example where during the Seven Days Battles, Westley, a body servant, took the weapons from a frightened white confederate and killed a Yankee with almost every shot and was "An inspiration to the white soldiers." A servant named Jem was described as "A black fire eater," a strong supporter of secession, and fought at First Manassas. Other servants were thrown in as artillerymen at First Manassas. Historian Phillip Tucker quotes the Evansville Daily Journal of Indiana who mistakenly reported a regiment of confederate negro cavalry at Bull Run when in reality it was 30-40 armed servants who joined in the pursuit of retreating Federals.

Slave Primus Kelly volunteered for  the 8th Texas Cavalry and fought in the battles. Likewise, 12th Virginia Cavalry captain George Baylor's two slaves Tom and Overton "picked up arms" and "Joined in the company charges." Former Mississippi slave Henry Warfield observed "Negroes were used by the Confederates long before they were used by the Union forces...and a large number of these fought by the side of their masters."

On rare occasions, masters would send a slave to serve in their place. Former slave Geroge Kye said, "When the war came along I was a grown man, and I went to serve because the old master was too old to go, but he had to send somebody anyways, I served as Geroge Stover."

While not official in the ranks of the units, some of these body servants would serve as sharpshooters. Ervin Jordan documents Federal soldier George Hapman of the 89th NY reported killing a "Rebel sharpshooter negro" in June of 1863. Herman Clarke of the 117th NY wrote home that he was ambushed by a "****** sharpshoter." Tucker gives many examples of this class of southern soldiers.

One southern black sharpshooter around Yorktown earned a reputation for his aim among union soldiers who wrote of, "A rebel negro riflemen, who through his skill as a markeman, had done more injury to our men than any dozen of his white compeers." This sharpshooter was so good he eventually had to be taken out by the Federals' famous sharpshooter "California Joe," as reported in the NY Herald under "Sniper duels with black confederates." In June of 1862, George Hapman of the 89th NY wrote home that he had a ring made out of the tree that "Joe shot the rebel sharpshooter ****** out of."

Servant snipers became so common that on January the 10th, 1863, Harper's Weekly did a front-page illustration of two black confederate snipers titled "Rebel negro pickets as seen through a fiberglass." Tucker again quotes the Daily Sun of Columbus, Georgia, reporting on a servant soldier at Belmont. "In the recent battle at Belmont, Lieutenant Shelton [13th Arkansas]…had his servant Jack in the fight. Both Jack and his master were wounded, but not till they had made the most heroic efforts to drive back the insolent invaders. Finally, after Jack had fired at the enemy 27 times, he fell seriously wounded in the arm. Jack's son was on the field and loaded the rifle for his father, who shot at the enemy three times after he was upon the ground." Tucker quotes James G Bates of the 13th Indiana vol infantry writing home, "The rebels have negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters, and the boldest of them all here is a negro." Thomas Knox, a journalist for the NY Herald, reported on the battle of Chickasaw Bayou "On our right a negro sharpshooter has been observed whose exploits are deserving of notice. He mounts a breastwork regardless of all danger, and getting sight of a federal soldier, draws up his musket at arm's length and fires, never failing of hitting his mark."

Black Confederate Soldiers

"As a matter of fact, it was in the Confederate armies that the first negro soldiers were enlisted. During the latter part of April, 1861, a Negro company at Nashville, Tennessee made up of "free people of color" offered its services to the Confederate Government. Shortly after, a recruiting office was opened for free Negroes at Memphis Tennessee."

-Booker T Washington, The Story of the Negro; the Rise of the Race from Slavery  New York, Doubleday 1909 

"It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still." 

-Frederick Douglass Douglass' Monthly, September 1861 

Thousands of Southern blacks loyal to Dixie fought as soldiers in Confederate armies. Southern states and local militia allowed blacks into service from the outset of the war, while the North initially rejected the idea. Virginia and Tennessee, in particular, set up recruitment stations for all able-bodied blacks. The colored Tennessee militia was described as "Brimful of patriotism, shouting for Jeff Davis and singing war songs." In Memphis, Tennessee. Two black regiments were raised in September, becoming the first state to authorize black soldiers. 

"The legislature of Tennessee...enacted in June, 1861, a law authorizing the governor—"To receive into the military service of the State all male free persons of color, between the age of 15 and 50, who should receive $8 per month, clothing and rations." 

-Joseph T Wilson The Black Phalanx African American Soldiers in the War of Independence, the War of 1812, and the Civil War Da Capo Press New York 1994

The "Native Guards, Louisiana" consisted of 1,500 free colored volunteers from Louisiana who supplied themselves. They stated they were fighting because "The free colored population of Louisiana …own slaves and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana …They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-1815." Swearing to the Louisianan Governor to defend the Confederacy, they became the first civil war unit to appoint black officers. On May 12, after the capture of New Orleans, Bailey Frank of the 34th NY volunteers wrote: "There is no mistake, but the rebels have black soldiers for I have seen them brought in as prisoners of war, I saw one who had the stripes of an ordinary Sargent on his coat." 

The very first land battle of the war in Hampton, Virginia, on June 10, 1861, involved a black confederate. Tucker reports that Sam, a servant soldier of Captain Richard Ashe, was the hero of the battle. Sam shot Union major Theodore Winthrop, stopping the advance of the federals. Winthrop was the first Union officer killed in battle. (Note: three different white soldiers also claimed to have killed Winthrop.) Tucker also reports on the battle of New Market, Virginia, where local black militia helped win the day. The NY Herald, on December 28, 1861, reported, "The rebels have an entire company of infantry composed of negroes." And "The skirmishers of the 20th NY vol regiment discovered the enemy, consisting of three companies of infantry. Among them one company of negroes, who appeared in the front, and made the attack." The local militia fought so well defending their home state, the Milwaukee Daily News headlined in January, "white soldiers outdone by blacks." One federal officer they quoted from the battle said, "Fifty armed negroes flanked the whites formed the center, and they fought better than their white fellows." And "Negro infantry opened fire on our men...the wounded men testify positively they were shot by negroes, and that not less than 700 were present, armed with muskets." On December 23, 1861, NY Tribune wrote of the "Attack on our soldiers by armed negroes." In all, six patriotic southern blacks were killed defending their homeland in the battle. After the battle, Ervin Jordan quotes a NY soldier who wrote, "If they fight us with negroes, why should we not fight them with negroes too?.... let us fight the devil with fire."

Likewise, Jordan reports the 1st Ohio Volunteer were was attacked on June 17, 1861, by the 1st South Carolina, accompanied by "A body of 150 armed negroes." Black members of the 1st Regiment Virginia Cavalry company H killed a Union soldier on July 2, 1861, at Falling Waters. Phillip Powers wrote to his wife that an armed black in his company shot and killed an escaping federal. General D.Stuart was quoted in the Army and Navy Gazette reporting, "The enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men. The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55." 

Black fought with units at Petersburg. Bull Run, Vicksburg, Seven Days, Brandy Station, and Antietam. Frank Cunningham tells of armed negroes with no uniforms who fought for the Confederacy in Arkansas under a McIntosh regiment in March 1862. Both free and enslaved blacks fought under general Forrest, who after the war said: "Better Confederates did not live." In his book The Appomattox Campaign, Chris Calkins reports a skirmish on April 5, 1865, when black and white Confederate soldiers defended a confederate wagon train but were eventually captured by the 1st Pennsylvania and 24th NY cavalry. The federals reported that among the captured black prisoners some were termed "teamsters." After Gettysburg, the NY Herald, July 11, 1863, "Reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers." 

Thomas Tobi, a black man, served with the Army of Northern Virginia as a volunteer from May 12, 1861, to April 16, 1865,. A free man of color, Charles Lutz of the 8th LA volunteer infantry, was a two-time POW during the war. He fought at major engagements in Virginia and was first captured at Chancellorsville. Six blacks joined the Goochland light artillery and fought at Chaffin's Bluff. In August 1861, near Hampton, Virginia, Union army Colonel John W. Phelps of the 1st Vermont Infantry reported artillery manned by Negroes. 

"The most liberal calculation could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc and they were an integral portion of the Southern Confederate army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixing it up with all the Rebel horde."

 -Union Sanitation Commission Inspector Dr. Louis Steiner, Sept. 1862 

"William Colen Revels was twenty years old when he volunteered for Confederate service, and was one of the first men of any color in Surry County, North Carolina, to march off to war. He spent the greater part of the war in the 21 North Carolina Infantry, and is listed on the rolls as a "Negro." He was wounded in the leg at Winchester, and caught a bullet in the right thigh at Gettysburg, probably on East Cemetery Hill on July 2 1863." 

-Frank Edward Deserino University College London A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment to the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of London Department of History University College London July, 2001

How Many Black Confederates Fought?

"We were defeated, routed and driven from the field. ... It was not alone the white man's victory, for it was won by slaves. Yes, the Confederates had three regiments of blacks in the field, and they maneuvered like veterans, and beat the Union men back."

-William Henry Johnson, 8th Connecticut Volunteer Infantry at Manassas Quoted in Kari A Kornell African Americans in the Civil War Abdo Publishing 2016

"At least nine documented blacks….served in the ranks of the 6th Louisiana Calvary...another company of enthusiastic blacks Louisianan troopers hailed from a vibrant free black community of Catholic mulattoes whitch was known as Isle Brevels these hard riding black cavalrymen...slashing with sabers at a target dummy with the appropriate name of "abe lincoln." 

-Phillip Thomas Tucker, Blacks in Grey Uniforms; A New Look at the South's Most Forgotten Combat Troops 1861-1865 America Through Time 2019 

After researching the question, Harvard professor John Stauffer concluded, "Thousands of Southern slaves and freedmen fought willingly and loyally on the side of the Confederacy." There is no question blacks willingly fought for the South; Historian Phillip Tucker writes, "To deny the fact that these courageous black rebels, free and slave, risked their lives in fighting on the battlefield has been a great injustice rooted in personal agendas that have little to do with history." 

However, it is impossible to tell how many blacks fought for the South as not all the records survived the war, nor were they all recorded. Estimates range from a few thousand to 10,000. Historians Stauffer and Tucker both estimate between three and ten thousand in total. Historian John Winters estimates that 3,000 black and mulattoes came from Louisiana alone, the state that provided more colored troops to the Confederacy than any other. Of course, we must define what a soldier is. If we only count those after the confederate congress officially recruited black soldiers in the regular army in 1865, then less than 1,000 served. If we accept a black man armed as an individual, in mixed regiments, or in-state militia units, fighting under a confederate general, then I would guess at least a few thousand. In some cases, blacks might have been forced by their master or white officer to help fight in battle; these would not count as soldiers, in my opinion.

However, there were a great many slaves who wanted to fight, but their masters would not allow them. Masters would send their sons to die, but not their slaves. In a speech given on February 9, 1865, Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin said, "Let us now say to every negro who wishes to go into the ranks on condition of being free, go and fight—you are free. My own negroes have been to me and said, 'Master, set us free and we'll fight for you." 

The Slave Narratives provide many examples of slaves wanting to go to war with their masters, but either their masters were unwilling to send them, or they were too young. Many free mulattoes had to sneak into the service to fight. One Confederate who pushed for the freeing of slaves and their enlistment by the Confederate federal government, was General Lee, who said he "Regrets the unwillingness of owners to permit their slaves to enter the service." And Charles Marshall wrote to General R.S Ewell on March 27, 1865, "The state authorities can do nothing to get those negroes who are wanting to join the army, but whose masters refuse their consent."

Large numbers of southern blacks wanted to join but many stubborn slave owners were unwilling. In fact, some slaves, like William Rose of the 1st SC Infantry, ran away to join the army as a musician.

"Every precaution should be taken to insure proper and kind treatment of the negroes and to render them contented in the service...there should be a system of rewards too, for good conduct and industry...most of the negroes are accustomed to something of this sort on the plantations." 

-J.F Gilmer Major-General and Chief of the Engineer Bureau 1864 

When the Confederate Congress did authorize the enlistment of federal black confederates, they did so with fair treatment in mind as statements like "primary importance that the negroes should know that the service is voluntary on their part" and "harshness...or offensive language or conduct to them must be forbidden." Southern blacks receive fair treatment from the outset of the war. They received equal pay and worked in integrated units, but they were also treated fairly otherwise.

On April 29, 1862, Secretary of War George Randolph heard rumors the slaves doing manual labor for the Southern army were in dire conditions on the Peninsula. He wrote to confederate general John Magruder who responded, "The soldiers, however, have been more exposed and have suffered far more than the slaves. The latter have always slept undercover and have had fires to make them comfortable, while the men have been working in the rain, have stood in the trenches and rifle pits in mud and water almost knee-deep without shelter, fire or sufficient food." Hard to detect any racism and discrimination there. 

Other minorities fought for the South as well. Jews were the largest minority group of soldiers to fight for the Confederacy, with an estimated 10,000 soldiers who fought. Other minority groups who supported the Confederacy with thousands of soldiers were Native Americans, Chinese and Mexicans. As DiLorenzo points out, those who desire to make the civil war one of slavery and white supremacy of the South vs. tolerance and freedom from the North must stop to consider that federal units with slave owners fought against non-slave-owning southerners through the entire war. And black southerners volunteered to fight while white southerners, both slave-owning, and non-slave-owning, avoided the war.

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

Louis Wigfall: Confederate Politician, Texas Senator

Louis Wigfall serves as a compelling character within the context of political leadership. Often, we associate the origins of our political figures with their achievements in finance and business, which are perceived as essential for a successful political trajectory. However, Louis Trezevant Wigfall, a prominent Senator of the Confederate States of America and a fervent advocate for secession, lacked such conventional qualifications. His ascent to prominence is an intriguing tale reflective of the Old South, and his exercise of power reveals a distinct dimension of that societal framework.

Lloyd W Klein MD explains.

Louis Wigfall.

Origin and Character

Wigfall was born on a plantation in the vicinity of Edgefield, South Carolina, to a prosperous merchant from Charleston, while his mother hailed from French Huguenot lineage. Tragically, his father passed away when Wigfall was merely two years old, and he lost his mother at the age of thirteen. He had an older brother, Hamden, who met his demise in a duel, a significant detail in Wigfall's life narrative, while another brother, Arthur, rose to prominence as a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Wigfall pursued his education at what would later be known as the University of South Carolina, where he spent a considerable amount of time in taverns, with the exception of a three-month period during which he participated in the Seminole War.

Afterwards, Wigfall engaged in a lifestyle characterized by excessive drinking and gambling, ultimately depleting his inheritance and accruing substantial debts from friends and even his future spouse. He eventually returned to Edgefield, where he assumed control of his deceased brother's law practice, although he did not find success in this endeavor either. The South Carolina Encyclopedia describes him as “financially irresponsible,” noting that he wasted his moderate inheritance on vices such as gambling, alcohol, and illicit relationships.

However, these shortcomings were not the most alarming aspects of Wigfall's character. He was known for his violent disposition, frequently challenging others to duels despite the tragic fate of his brother. Notably, he was involved in at least two duels prior to the Civil War. His political affiliations led him into a series of altercations, including a fistfight, two duels, and three near-duels over a span of five months, culminating in a charge for homicide, although he was not indicted. In a notable duel with Preston Brooks, who later gained infamy for assaulting Charles Sumner in the Senate, Wigfall sustained gunshot wounds to his thighs.

Political Career

None of this helped his political aspirations, so in 1848, he moved to Texas, joining a law practice. The dynamic and often tumultuous nature of Texas politics proved to be more aligned with his temperament, as he held a seat in the Texas House of Representatives from 1849 to 1850, followed by a tenure in the Texas Senate from 1857 to 1860.

He emerged as a prominent member of a faction known as the "Fire-eaters," which included notable figures such as Edmund Ruffin, Robert Rhett, and William Lowndes Yancey. During a convention in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1850, the Fire-Eaters advocated for southern secession, emphasizing the irreconcilable differences between the North and South, and they intensified regional tensions through their use of propaganda against Northern interests. He became a staunch adversary of Sam Houston, who espoused pro-Union sentiments, and actively campaigned against him during Houston's gubernatorial run in 1857, criticizing his congressional record. In 1859, Wigfall was elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat, serving until his withdrawal on March 23, 1861, and was subsequently expelled on July 11, 1861, due to his support for the rebellion.

Position on Slavery

Wigfall's stance on slavery was characteristic of the traditional Southern viewpoint prevalent during his era. He advocated for a societal structure dominated by the planter class, which was fundamentally reliant on slavery and the principles of the chivalric code. Following the gubernatorial election of 1857, there appeared to be a shift in public sentiment towards the Union, particularly as the Know-Nothing Party began to disband. However, the John Brown Raid reignited the contentious debate surrounding slavery, likely contributing to his electoral success. Upon his entry into the United States Senate in 1859, Wigfall consistently resisted any initiatives aimed at alleviating political discord. He emerged as a prominent figure in the campaign to guarantee the rights of Southern slaveholders to migrate with their slaves into new territories. Additionally, he was a staunch advocate of nullification during his time in South Carolina and fervently supported the expansion of slavery while opposing protective tariffs.

He resorted to threats of violence in his politics as well as in his personal life. Regarding the difference of opinion about slavery that northerners had, he said, “You shall not publish newspapers and pamphlets to excite the non-slaveholders against the slaveholders, or the slaveholders against the non-slaveholders. We will have peace; and if you do not offer it to us, we will quietly, and as we have the right under the constitutional compact to do, withdraw from the Union and establish a government for ourselves; and if you then persist in your aggressions, we will leave it to the ultimo ratio regum (a resort to arms), and the sovereign States will settle that question. And when you laugh at these impotent threats, as you regard them, I tell you that cotton is king.”

Secession

The conflicts between Wigfall and Sam Houston, the Texas governor, were marked by intensity. Houston was a strong proponent of the Southern cause but believed that the best strategy was to stay in  the Union and bring about change from within, not to fight a war over secession. Wigfall labeled Houston as a coward and a traitor to the Southern cause. Wigfall stood out as one of the rare individuals in opposition to Houston who could match him in oratory skills, and he received considerable recognition for contributing to Houston's loss in the gubernatorial race of 1857.

Wigfall's role in the Democratic Convention of 1860 was of significant consequence. As a leading fire-eater, he advocated for the Democratic party's platform to explicitly demand that the Federal government ensure the protection of slavery within the territories. His efforts were instrumental in the fracturing of the Democratic party, which ultimately facilitated the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. In January 1865, he expressed his views on social hierarchy by stating, “Sir, I wish to live in no country where the man who blacks my boots or curries my horse is my equal.” His support for secession was rooted in the belief that it would provide a lasting solution to the sectional tensions of the time.

Following Lincoln's election, Wigfall played a pivotal role in drafting the "Southern Manifesto," which proclaimed that any prospects for reconciliation within the Union had vanished. He argued that the dignity and autonomy of the South necessitated the formation of a Southern Confederacy. Despite this strong stance, Wigfall did not resign from the United States Senate until he had successfully undermined all compromise efforts proposed in early 1861, demonstrating his commitment to the cause he championed.

Wigfall maintained his Senate seat even after Texas seceded on February 1, 1861, passionately advocating for the Southern cause while criticizing his Northern counterparts both in the Senate chamber and in various Capitol Hill establishments. Unlike other senators, such as Jefferson Davis, who chose to resign following their states' secession, Wigfall opted to remain in office for a period. It is widely believed that he leveraged his position to gather intelligence on military activities and procure arms for the Confederate forces.

Following secession, Wigfall's influence grew significantly, rooted in his ideological beliefs and support from his Texas constituency. He was inducted into the Provisional Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861, where he contributed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Additionally, he represented Texas in the Provisional Confederate Congress, which established the Confederacy's provisional government and appointed Jefferson Davis as its president. During his tenure in Washington, Wigfall engaged in espionage against Federal military preparations, arranged for the transport of weapons to the South, and, after being expelled by his Senate colleagues, traveled to Baltimore, Maryland, to enlist soldiers for the Confederacy before making his way to Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital.

And then, he travelled to Charleston to do what he could to start a war.

Fort Sumter

Wigfall advocated an attack on Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens with the intention of encouraging Virginia and other upper southern slave states to align with the Confederacy. He recognized that the Border States and those still undecided would likely choose to secede once an armed conflict targeting the South commenced. His fervent advocacy was directed towards both the media and his political associates. Upon his arrival in Charleston, South Carolina, during the onset of the siege of Fort Sumter, diarist Mary Chestnut identified him as the only individual who appeared “thoroughly happy”. His presence during the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter from Morris Island was seen as a reckless provocation.

While acting as an aide to General Beauregard amid the bombardment of Fort Sumter, Wigfall took it upon himself to approach the fort without prior authorization. He rowed a small boat to the island and demanded the surrender of Major Robert Anderson. Acting independently, he commandeered a rowboat on Morris Island, accompanied by Private Gourdin Young of the Palmetto Guard and two enslaved individuals, to reach Fort Sumter. Upon his arrival, he sought an audience with Major Anderson and entered the fort through an open embrasure. Wigfall informed the Federals, “Your flag is down, you are on fire, and you are not firing your guns. General Beauregard wants to stop this.” His intervention successfully halted the hostilities and he offered favorable terms for surrender.

His actions received significant media attention, enhancing Wigfall's public profile; however, the reports omitted the crucial fact that he had not communicated with Beauregard for two days prior to his actions. When the official representatives eventually arrived at the fort, they were taken aback to discover that Wigfall had extended terms to Anderson that had already been rejected by Beauregard. This misalignment between Wigfall's unilateral decision and the command structure of the Confederate forces highlighted the complexities and tensions within the leadership during this critical moment in the conflict.

Military Service

Following his pivotal involvement in orchestrating the surrender of Fort Sumter, he attained a level of public recognition that had previously eluded him. Drawing from his combative history, he opted to enlist in military service as a means to enhance his public image. On August 28, 1861, he was appointed as colonel of the First Texas Infantry, and subsequently, on November 21, Davis nominated him for the rank of brigadier general in the Provisional Army, a nomination that was later ratified by the Confederate Congress. Wigfall took command of the Texas Brigade within the Army of Northern Virginia.  2. During the winter of 1861–1862, he established his residence in a tavern located near his troops in Dumfries, Virginia, where he often summoned his men to arms at midnight, driven by fears of a Federal invasion. His anxiety was attributed to his excessive consumption of whiskey and hard cider. As a result, Wigfall's effectiveness as a brigadier general diminished, and he frequently appeared intoxicated, both on and off duty, in front of his soldiers.

Confederate Congress

So, finding military life a bit too regimented, he resigned on February 20, 1862 and took a seat in the First Confederate Congress and served throughout the war. He sat on the committees on Foreign Affairs; Military Affairs; Territories; and Flag and Seal. John Bell Hood replaced him in  brigade command, and became known as Hood’s brigade, which he personally led at Antietam.

He had started as a close friend of Jefferson Davis. Initially he served as a military aide to Davis. An arrogant man, Wigfall soon came into conflict with President Davis. After the chief executive vetoed Wigfall’s bill to upgrade staff positions in the army and limit presidential selection, Wigfall carried his fight into social circles, even going so far as to refuse to stand when Davis entered the room. Although a friend and supporter of the Confederate military, he was also an obstructionist in opposing Davis’ nominations.

What could a fire-eater like Wigfall find objectionable about Davis, the ultimate states rights advocate? Davis began to recognize that to survive, the new nation needed a powerful executive with powers that superseded state governors. Inflation, recruitment of soldiers, the building of a navy and acquiring war resources necessitated a strong central government. Davis’ nationalized the salt industry, for example, and regulated salt production, a responsibility more similar to socialism than capitalism or states rights. Meanwhile, Wigfall as senator blocked the creation of a Confederate Supreme Court and openly questioned many of Davis’ military decisions.

Wigfall proposed the first conscription law ever enacted in American history. His main legislative successes were initiating Conscription and then extending its age requirements and funding much needed railroad construction.

During the last two years of the Confederacy Wigfall carried on public and conspiratorial campaigns to strip Davis of all influence. His continuing conflict with Davis and his support of military men and strategies that Davis did not like led to his loss of influence in the final years of the war. He did very little constructive work for the people of Texas.

As the war increasingly turned against the CSA, Wigfall became the predominant critic of the Davis war effort, including his choice of commanders.

After Appomattox, Wigfall’s belligerence remained unabated. He escaped back to Texas. He spent six years in self-imposed exile in London before returning briefly to Baltimore, and later to Galveston, Texas. He never adjusted to defeat and never admitted to losing.

Wigfall was very close to Joseph E Johnston, who of course was not one of Davis’s favorites. He also early on suggested promoting Robert E Lee to commander of all Confederate armies, a post Davis would never create.

After Gettysburg and western defeats, Wigfall attacked Robert E. Lee, John Pemberton and Braxton Bragg. In January 1865 his successor as head of the Texas Brigade, John Bell Hood, is relieved of command after a loss at Franklin. The influential Wigfall announced that Davis’ “pig-headedness and perverseness” were destroying the South.

After the chief executive vetoed Wigfall’s bill to upgrade staff positions in the army and limit presidential selection, Wigfall carried his fight into social circles, even going so far as to refuse to stand when Davis entered the room.

He opposed the arming of slaves and was willing to lose the war rather than admit that Blacks were worthy of being soldiers. He stated that he didn’t want to “make a Santo Domingo of his country.” His racial prejudices remained unchanged from his youth.

He tried to foment war between Britain and the United States, hoping to give the South an opportunity to rise again. 

Famous Quotes

“We want no manufacturers, we are a nation of proud farmers who want to preserve our lifestyle'.

December 11, 1860, on the floor of the Senate; "I said that one of the causes, and the one that has created more excitement and dissatisfaction than any other, is, that the Government will not hereafter, and when it is necessary, interpose to protect slaves as property in the Territories; and I asked the Senator if he would abandon his squatter-sovereignty notions and agree to protect slaves as all other property?" [Quote taken from The Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 58.]

Regarding the Homestead Act: "It provides land for the land-less, homes for the home-less, but no slaves for the slave-less." (he actually used the N-word, which I am changing here for obvious reasons).

I realize that it is painful to read these words in their raw, unfiltered original form. The point is that when confronted with what was actually said, we see meanings that were in fact intended that otherwise gets lost in the translation, which then gets twisted into: “Slavery wasn’t all that bad.” But this is what the intent was.

Wigfall was a confederate politician from the State of Texas. He is regarded as one of the most conservative politicians of his time and place, which is really radical, who wanted to carve out a unique identify and future for Texas. He wanted to build Texas on the model of old European aristocratic systems where the few owned all of the land. But he went further: they would also own all of the people who worked on their land. He supported the use of slaves and believed that they were integral in order to preserve a system of order. Essentially, he was advocating a hereditary, aristocratic serf system that was racially based.

Although it is well recognized that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone” was slavery and racism, it is sobering to recognize that their thought leaders went way beyond that. Their dream was a class and economic system that benefitted the very few at the expense of the many, a return to medieval feudalism before the Magna Carta. And the underlying rationale was white supremacy mixed in with a superiority of heredity. It is breathtaking to think that this was only 160-170 years ago in America.

And to accomplish that, they were willing to forego industrial and manufacturing progress to keep their society in line. The hubris of thinking that they could keep technological advances out of their culture is mind blowing, and not unlike that seen in certain Middle East sheikdoms, which has also had to be modified in light of modern progress. This is the foundation of why illiteracy and poor education was the real cornerstone of the Confederacy. I believe this subject has not been addressed in the historical record to any great extent.

Summary

Wigfall's reputation for oratory and hard drinking, along with a combative nature and high-minded sense of personal honor, made him one of the more imposing political figures of his time.  It is interesting that his overarching interests became military strategy, personnel and recruitment. His advocacy of the preservation and expansion of an aristocratic agricultural society based on slave labor was his main domestic position. He was a belligerent drunkard who was happy to fight anyone physically. But he actually had a cogent, albeit outrageous and unethical, economic blueprint for what he wanted to see his country and state become. He had a vision of America that modern Americans would not recognize.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Further reading

Louis Wigfall: Southern Fire-Eater by A. L. King. Men of Secession by James Abrahamson.

King, Alvy L. Louis T. Wigfall: Southern Fire-Eater. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Lord, C. W. “Young Louis Wigfall: South Carolina Politician and Duelist.” South Carolina Historical Magazine 59 (April 1958): 96–112.

https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-fire-eaters/

https://roadtothecivilwar.org/louis-t-wigfall/

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/wigfall-louis-trezevant

https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/wigfall-louis-trezevant/ 

https://roadtothecivilwar.org/louis-t-wigfall/

https://www.nps.gov/people/louis-wigfall.htm

https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-fire-eaters/

Airborne Hope: The Balloon Post of the 1870-71 Siege of Paris

During the Franco-Prussian War, Paris was under siege, cut off from communication, and facing dwindling supplies. In a daring move, Parisians took to the skies with gas-filled balloons to carry mail, people, and news across enemy lines. These flights, though dangerous and often unpredictable, became a vital lifeline and stand as one of the most innovative uses of aviation in wartime. This article delves into the bold balloon post operation and its significance during the Siege of Paris.

Richard Clements explains.

The Louis Blanc, piloted by Eugène Farcot. Part of the Balloon Post.

Historical Context: The Franco-Prussian War and the Siege of Paris

The Franco-Prussian War began in 1870, with Prussian forces quickly overwhelming French defenses. By September, Paris was completely encircled by Prussian troops, cutting off communication with the rest of the country. The Government of National Defense, formed by republican deputies in Paris, desperately needed to maintain contact with unoccupied France and the French government-in-exile in Tours. To address this, the Parisians turned to an ingenious solution: balloon post.

The Birth of the Balloon Post

With telegraph lines cut and roads blocked, the idea of using balloons to carry mail and messages out of Paris arose out of sheer necessity. The first balloon was launched on September 23, 1870, by Jules Duruof, a professional balloonist. His flight carried critical dispatches, and the success of this mission led to the establishment of regular balloon services. Eyewitness accounts from Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (known as Nadar) describe the public’s awe and anticipation as they watched the first balloons ascend, hoping for safe passage.

Balloon Construction and Design

Most of the balloons used during the siege were gas-filled, typically with hydrogen, which was produced by decomposing zinc and sulfuric acid. These balloons were usually made from silk or rubber and measured 26 to 33 feet in diameter, capable of carrying between 440 and 1,100 pounds of cargo, including mail, newspapers, and sometimes passengers.

While hot air balloons (dirigibles) were experimented with during this period, they were less reliable than their gas-filled counterparts and mainly used for shorter flights. The hydrogen-filled balloons, on the other hand, were much more buoyant and suited for long-distance travel.

Operational Details: Launch Sites and Flight Paths

Balloon flights were launched from various locations within Paris, such as the Gare d'Orléans. Pilots relied on wind direction to steer their balloons, as navigation tools were rudimentary. The unpredictability of balloon flight meant pilots often found themselves landing far from their intended destinations.

For instance, Le Jacquard was famously blown off course and landed in Norway, an event that caused quite a stir given the distance. Similarly, L'Archimède, piloted by naval officer Jules Buffet, flew north and crossed over Belgian and Dutch territory, eventually landing near the Belgian-Dutch border. Buffet later recounted the exhilarating flight, describing how Paris slowly disappeared from view as they rose to 6,500 feet at night, while fires and landmarks lit their way.

Cargo and Passengers

The main purpose of the balloon post was to carry mail, and by the end of the siege, more than two million letters had been sent out of Paris. In addition to mail, government dispatches, newspapers, and even homing pigeons were transported via these balloons. Some balloons also carried passengers, including government officials who needed to escape Paris.

The most famous passenger was Léon Gambetta, the French Minister of the Interior, who escaped Paris by balloon in October 1870. Gambetta’s flight was crucial, as it allowed him to coordinate resistance efforts from outside the besieged city, boosting the morale of the French population.

Successes and Failures

While many balloon flights were successful, some faced dire consequences. Of the 67 balloons launched during the siege, several failed to reach their intended destinations. Some were intercepted by Prussian forces, while others were lost to bad weather or navigational issues. For example, one balloon that tried to land near Mechelen in Belgium was startled by celebratory gunfire, causing the pilot to abort the landing, fearing it was enemy fire.

Despite these challenges, the operation was a tremendous success overall, both in terms of communication and morale. The sight of a balloon rising above the city brought hope to the people of Paris, symbolizing that they were still connected to the outside world.

Retrieving Balloons and Cargo

Once the balloons landed in friendly territory, their cargo of letters and dispatches had to be retrieved, often by locals. For example, after L'Archimède landed in Belgium, local peasants helped Jules Buffet deflate the balloon and recover the letters. The letters and dispatches were then forwarded through regular postal services, ensuring their delivery to recipients across unoccupied France.

The retrieval process wasn’t without risk. In one instance, a balloon’s descent was complicated by local villagers smoking pipes near the hydrogen-filled balloon. Such incidents highlight the unpredictability of balloon landings and the challenges of safely recovering valuable cargo.

The Impact on the Siege

The balloon post played a vital role in maintaining the morale of Parisians during the siege. Knowing their letters and dispatches were reaching the outside world reassured them that they hadn’t been forgotten. Additionally, the balloon post allowed the French government to coordinate military efforts from outside Paris, although communication was one-way, as nothing could be sent back into the city.

Legacy and Historical Significance

The use of balloons during the Siege of Paris marked a key moment in the history of aviation and military communication. The success of gas-filled balloon flights demonstrated the potential of air transport for carrying messages during times of conflict. The balloon post of the siege became a cultural symbol of French resilience and ingenuity, inspiring numerous depictions in newspapers, paintings, and books.

Conclusion

The balloon post of the Siege of Paris stands as a remarkable achievement of innovation and perseverance during a time of extreme hardship. While most of the balloons were gas-filled and expertly crafted for long-distance travel, the occasional use of hot air balloons showed the broad range of experimentation at play. Each flight, whether successful or facing challenges, carried with it the hopes of a city under siege, forever cementing its place in aviation history.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

Aubry, Octave. The Siege of Paris: 1870-1871. Macmillan, 1933.

Boyle, Andrew. Flights of Fancy: The Balloon Post During the Franco-Prussian War. Military History Press, 1971.

Lachouque, Henry. The French Army and the Franco-Prussian War. Praeger, 1968.

Marsden, William. "Balloon Post: A Pioneering Aviation Feat." History Today, vol. 22, no. 4, 1972.

Nadar, Gaspard-Félix. My Life in the Air. Oxford University Press, 1899.

Rickards, Colin. Aviation Before the Airplane: Paris Balloons of 1870. Oxford University Press, 1980.

Schwartz, Paul. "Balloons over Paris: The Role of Aviation in the Franco-Prussian War." Journal of Military History, vol. 53, no. 3, 1989.

Watson, Charles. The Balloons of Paris: A Forgotten History of Siege Warfare. HarperCollins, 1995.