Letters to the Editor — August 2020

Originally published August 2020 · pp. 2–5

TO THE EDITOR: I was struck by the lead article in your June issue: Fact or Fiction? Black Confederates. I’ve seen this matter discussed in a wide variety of venues and with an almost equal number of flat denials and fervid assertions. Frankly, the subject is simply irrelevant! Now we know that there were black soldiers in gray whatever their status, slave or free. We have the testimony of Frederick Douglass—hardly an advocate of the Confederacy—who commented upon seeing them as he gazed across the lines. And there is other equally credible testimony on the subject to put the matter to rest if permitted! But, as noted, if the whole subject is irrelevant, why the need to pursue it by both sides? Simple: there is an understanding, especially by advocates of the South, that the existence of blacks fighting for the Confederacy legitimizes their cause. Nonsense! It no more validates the cause of the South than do blacks fighting in blue validate the cause of the North. A cause is not vindicated by the people who fight for it. It is the same regarding secession. The States of the South had every right to secede from a

“union” that had become a burden to them and their citizens just as the New England States had the right to secede during the war of 1812. That they chose not to do so in no way nullifies the fact that they met in convention and voted on the issue. It is said that the Constitution is silent on secession. Not so! When three of the States—Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island—put that option into their ratification documents, the rest of the signatories accepted secession per se. In any contract—and the Constitution is a contract!—no signatory has fewer or more “rights” than any other signatory. With the acceptance of the ratification documents of those three states, both the Constitution itself and its signatories accepted the existence of secession, period. The argument is also made that the South seceded to protect slavery and somehow that delegitimizes the act. As Jefferson Davis pointed out, slavery was an “occasion” of all that followed, but not the cause. But even if the Cotton States had seceded for that reason, that did not invalidate their action. Those States met in convention and voted to secede. Having done so, like the New England states years earlier, they had fulfilled the constitutional demands on the matter. Any action taken against them by the federal (and supposedly limited) government in Washington was in fact treason according to that same Constitution under Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them [the Sovereign States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Parenthetically, neither can the so-called “firing of the first shot” scenario be used to make legal the federal government’s declaration of war. A war is attributed to whoever causes the first shot to be fired and a review of the Sumter matter clearly reveals that it was not the Confederacy. Ergo, treason was committed not by states constitutionally seceding, but by the federal government—supported by the rest of the states—declaring and waging war while claiming to be fighting the very treason they themselves were committing. And this is why the existence or nonexistence of “black Confederates” is a spurious issue being used to “validate” or “invalidate” that which is valid on its face. V. P. Hughes Response by Civil War News Editor Larry Babits: Mr. Hughes raises a great many issues that deal with the Civil War; the legality of secession; treason as a constitutional issue; blaming, or crediting, the persons who started the war, and prior attempts at leaving the union. These are certainly major issues, but they are the purview of “Big Men,” the movers and shakers. This is a top down approach to the War. Along with the big issues, our approach has been to try and also present the bottom up view of the common people who participated in the fighting after these major issues evolved into actual combat. We would welcome anyone wishing to address the Hughes’s commentaries as an article. If a person considers a topic irrelevant does not make it so. There has been a wide variety of commentary; American Battlefield Trust and John Coski are two examples, on whether or not people of color served as Confederate combatants. Civil War News tried to offer a balanced view of that one single issue because there are people out there who do consider it relevant. Along with the main issue of service by people of color, there were several ancillary topics covered in the article, including combat participation, and whether cooks, musicians, and others might not be considered “soldiers”; we tried to present information on these aspects as well because there have been attempts to denigrate a military person’s service because they “only” served as a musician or cook. We also tried to clarify; using contemporary laws, what constituted a person of color, because it was definitely not the same as today’s rather flexible interpretations. Claiming something is irrelevant is one way to hide it, and maybe, make it disappear. By saying something is irrelevant, it is condemned to be ignored, set aside, and then forgotten. Just declaring something irrelevant will not make it go away; there are some African Americans who argue for the recognition of their ancestors’ service and their voices should be given a hearing, whether they fought for the Blue or the Gray. The soldiers of the 1860s have earned that right because their “past services have endeared them to their countrymen.” TO THE EDITOR: My thanks to Civil War News and reviewer Joseph Truglio for a well thought out and balanced review of my book Generals killed at Gettysburg. (Civil War News July 2020) Of 120 generals present at Gettysburg, nine were killed or mortally wounded during the battle. No other battle claimed as many general officers. Mr. Truglio correctly points out that this book is valuable for those new to the study of the war’s biggest battle. But the book is also about the devastating loss of leadership and the human beings whose deaths would impact the war’s ultimate outcome, information that even those familiar with the battle will profit from. The very minor criticisms were valid and I appreciated the suggestion to give a copy to a younger student and send him/her on a “journey of learning.” Joe Mieczkowski TO THE EDITOR: I thoroughly enjoyed your June 2020 issue, especially Dr. Lawrence E. Babits’ article Fact or Fiction? Black Confederates. It was perhaps the best treatment of the controversial subject that I’ve seen yet. Most will agree that officially the Confederacy did not permit Americans of African descent into its armed forces until the last weeks of the war, far too late to make a difference. There is endless documentation of Blacks serving in various capacities, primarily in important support roles. Unofficially, there are documented cases of Blacks bearing arms for the Confederacy and involved in combat. The Official Records contain several accounts by Union officers reporting encounters with armed and accoutered Blacks in the Confederate forces, all throughout the war. John Wilson Buckner of Sumter County, S.C., is worthy of examination. Private J.W. Buckner briefly appears on the January 14, 1862, muster roll of Company E, 7th Battalion (Enfield Rifles) South Carolina Infantry (Nelson’s Battalion), and reportedly served under Captain B.E. Boykin and Captain P.P. Gaillard. The length of his service or why he departed that command is unknown. The following year Buckner enlisted as a private, March 27, 1863 with Company I, 1st Regiment, South Carolina Artillery. Buckner was wounded at Fort Wagner, July 10, 1863. The July 1, 1863, Charleston Mercury lists a “T.H.Buckner, 1st Regiment, S.C. Artillery, Company I”, among those admitted to Roper Hospital in Charleston. It must be presumed that “T.H.” was John W. Buckner, as there was no one else in that command with the Buckner surname. Private Buckner is listed as “present” on every company muster roll through JulyAugust 1864. He evidently went on furlough afterward and never returned, and was listed as “AWOL” or as a “deserter” effective October 14, 1864. His could be a case where he returned to duty, but records were lost or not kept by the command late in the war. In none of Buckner’s service records is his race documented. The 1850 and 1860 Sumter County, S.C., census lists show John Buckner as a free mulatto; the census records of 1870 and 1880 subsequently record him as a mulatto as well. All four enumerations record his occupation or trade as a gin maker. His father was Black and his mother a mulatto.

According to the 1994 book Black Southerners in Gray, edited by Richard Rollins, pp.1718, Buckner was a grandson of William Ellison, who was born 1791 into slavery, and received his freedom in 1816. Ellison developed a successful cotton gin manufacturing and repair business, and eventually owned 100 slaves. During the war the Ellison family supplied both neighbors and the Confederacy with provisions and hired out their skilled slaves for the war effort. John Buckner died August 17, 1895, and according to the August 28, 1895 Sumter Watchman and Southron newspaper, page 5, “he was always a free man and at the breaking out of the war enlisted as a regular soldier in Capt. P.P. Gaillard’s company. He served subsequently in Capt. Boykin’s company and later as a scout. He was a faithful soldier.” Some online Civil War “bloggers” are quick to dismiss mulattoes as not being “Black,”

and therefore cannot be Black Confederates. I wonder if the blogger would apply that same racial litmus test to Barack Obama, himself a man of mixed race with a Black father from Kenya, and White mother of European descent, who is universally acknowledged as our first Black president? Whether judged by mid-19th century standards or those of the early 21st century, John Wilson Buckner was a well-documented person of color who enlisted in the Confederate forces with the rank of Private, received pay for his services, was wounded in battle, medically treated in a hospital with his white comrades; and was acknowledged in his published death notice as a “faithful” Confederate soldier. Greg C. White