Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

The Irresistible Appeal of Black Confederates

Posted in African Americans, Memory by Andy Hall on June 28, 2010

Photo by
JimmyWayne, via Creative Commons License.

Over at Civil War Memory, Kevin highlights photos by Robert Pomerenk of an exhibit on “Blacks Who Wore Gray” at the Old Court House Museum in Vicksburg. The display features an original document, the 1914 pension application for former slave Ephram Roberson — the document explicitly asks for “the number of the regiment. . . in which your owner served” — but is otherwise composed of nothing but printouts of various quotes and well-known photographs of African American men in the field with Confederate troops, or (decades later) participating in reunion activities. At least one of the latter photos is credited to the neoconfederate publication Southern Partisan. The “Chandler Boys” are included, of course, though no one else whose image is displayed in the exhibit is fully identified by name and unit. One old African American man is listed only as “Uncle Lewis,” and others are not identified at all.

In terms of presenting or explaining history, the exhibit is a hopeless mess. Its organization — there actually is no organization or structure to it — is exactly the same as many Black Confederate websites, which amount to nothing more than a hodgepodge of quotes and images, unconnected either to each other or to any larger context, that make reference to African Americans in connection with Confederate troops. Like the typical Black Confederate website, there’s no distinction at all made between men who went to war as slaves and those who might have been free; one wonders if those who compile and present this material before the public have any real sense of the most basic elements of the “peculiar institution.” Several of the men shown in the Old Court House exhibit are explicitly identified as servants; there is no recognition — or at least public acknowledgment — that these men were almost certainly slaves, and had no say in whether they went off to war with their masters or not. There’s virtually no information offered about these men that would allow the visitor to get any sort of understanding of these men’s lives, either in the 1860s or in the early 20th century, as old men. There’s no attempt to flesh out their stories, to understand the details of their experiences either during the war, or after; instead, one is left with random quotes from Nathan Bedford Forrest and paeans “to the faithful slaves, who loyal to a sacred trust, toiled for the support of the Army, with matchless devotion and sterling fidelity guarded our defenseless homes, women and children, during the struggle for the principles of our Confederate States of America.” These men were soldiers, we’re asked to believe, volunteering and fighting for their homes and way of life, but they are never allowed to speak for themselves — the only ones allowed to speak on their behalf are white, and even then only to praise their loyalty and fidelity to the Confederacy.

This effort does nothing to honor these men as men. It is simply an extension of the time-honored “faithful slave” narrative, updated to make it more palatable to a modern audience. The Old Court House Museum differs from other efforts to push the case for Black Confederates only in that they actually go so far as to describe them explicitly as “faithful slaves.”

This exhibit would do far more to further the case for Black Confederates as a group if it proved the case of even a single man — Ephram Roberson, perhaps — and really provided in-depth coverage and explication of his life and role during the war and after, and proved his case as a soldier. Show us his service records, if such exist. Show us his listing in the census. Show us his property records, if there are any, or his obituary. If he was a slave, did he talk to the WPA in the 1930s? Are there contemporaneous letters or diaries from his fellow soldiers that describe his service? Track down his descendants living today and interview them. That is how history is done, through dogged research and building a case from the ground up.

But none of that is present at the Old Court House. There is no discussion of these mens’ supposed military service in the larger context of the war, no discussion of the actions they each fought in, and — most significantly — no firsthand accounts by white soldiers within those same units of their African American comrades’ service. What the Old Court House exhibit (and a hundred others on the web and in print) does is just the opposite; it takes a dozen or fifty or a hundred different, unconnected and disparate snapshots and claims that they form a larger, coherent picture. They don’t. They’re like items pulled from a dozen different families’ albums, scattered and mixed into a single pile on the floor; they do not, can not, tell anything approaching a single, cohesive story, no matter how many times they’re rearranged, e-mailed or Xeroxed.

I want to give the Old Court House Museum a pass on this exhibit, which contributes nothing at all to the making the case for Black Confederates. I began my professional career in small, local history museums not unlike this one. I spent six years, starting as an undergrad and continuing after graduation, part- and full-time, researching, writing, designing and setting up exhibits on local history. After that, I spent two years in grad school getting a masters in the field. I’m trained as a museum professional, though I haven’t worked in one for years. So I don’t walk into any museum as a purely blank slate. I even visited the Old Court House Museum once, years ago, although at the time I paid more attention to the steamboat material on display. And while I don’t know much about the specific resources available to the Old Court House — their administration and staff page is blank — I’ve got a good idea of what their situation is like, and it ain’t pretty. Small history museums like the Old Court House often get little or no direct support from local government, apart from in-kind provision of space and utilities; they have minimal paid staff, and cannot afford to hire people with significant experience or training in the field; they get by hand-to-mouth, year after year, trying to squeak by on a few thousand visitors paying a couple of bucks for admission. They are eager to give space to almost any group or person with a new or provocative idea for an exhibit, particularly if it fits well with the museum’s own preferred image of itself and the community it documents. And, as an organization dependent on the good will of the local business community — think of the chamber of commerce crowd — they’re heavily and inevitably influenced by the wishes of a small number of local patrons who may not know the first thing about history, but have very strong ideas about what they do and do not want showcased in their local museum. You’re welcome to make your own speculation who those folks are in Vicksburg.

Vicksburg looms large in the memory of the Civil War; it has been argued that the Vicksburg campaign, which cemented effective Union control of the Mississippi, was the true turning point of the war. But among the moonlight-and-magnolias image the community likes to present to tourists, it’s easy to forget that Vicksburg remains a small, poor town in a small, poor state. Fewer than 25,000 people live there; they are, on the whole, older and less-educated than the rest of the country. The median household income in Vicksburg is a little over half that of the rest of the United States; one in four families live below the poverty level, compared to one in ten nationally. Three-fifths of Vicksburg’s population is African American, a proportion that is exactly the reverse of Mississippi as a whole. Like many cities in the South, it has an ugly postwar history of racial violence and intimidation.

One might assume that the presence of the Vicksburg National Military Park would reinforce the efforts of local museums like the Old Court House; in fact, I think presence of a major Civil War site in town actually (and inadvertently) undermines the efforts of the local museum in developing a strong historical interpretive program of its own, in two ways. First, the national military park is the heavy hitter in terms of history; those in the area who have the educational background or experience are naturally drawn to the park, whether to work as administrators, guides or volunteers. Second, with the National Park Service providing a solid, but conventional, interpretation of the city’s role in the Civil War, the Old Court House Museum would naturally be drawn into serving as an “alternative” museum, presenting material and ideas that, for whatever reason, the NPS won’t touch. That’s where Black Confederates come in.

The idea of Black Confederates has a ready-made appeal. The contribution of African Americans to military service in this country has often been overlooked by both historians and popular culture. On its face, demanding recognition for African American soldiers who fought for the Confederacy sounds not unlike recognizing the achievements of the Tuskegee Airmen of World War II or the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry — both groups of African American soldiers who had to fight bigotry and doubt even to win the chance to prove themselves against the enemy. The notion of the existence of Black Confederates, while seeming contradict everything most people remember from school about the South, the war and the institution of slavery, also carries with it a certain conspiratorial appeal as well — this is the secret that Northern history books don’t want you to know. Who wouldn’t want to get let in on something like that? Recognizing African Americans serving in butternut uniforms seems like the right and just thing to do; conversely, those who express skepticism (or reject the notion outright) are easily portrayed as being motivated by elitism, prejudice or other ulterior motives to keep these mens’ service quiet, as has supposedly been done these last hundred and fifty years. They want to deny African Americans in the South their heritage. The Black Confederate narrative has a strong element of conspiracy about it, attributed to those who reject it, and like all good conspiracy theories this one is self-affirming: of course they deny these men’s existence, just like they always have. But we know better, don’t we?

I don’t know how many subscribers to the narrative of African Americans in the Confederate ranks are genuinely sincere but ill-informed and unable to recognize an historiographical con game when it’s foisted on them, and how many are willfully, cynically, spinning a line of “evidence” that they know to be composed of smoke and mirrors. As I said before, I want to give the Old Court House Museum a pass on this exhibit, because I know (or think I do) how vulnerable they are to the whims of a few well-heeled patrons, and how poorly-positioned they are to push back. But it’s hard to give them that pass. They may not know better, but they damn surely ought to.

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Bill Vallante said, on June 29, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Sorry to bust your bubble but Ephram Robinson, a slave from Mississippi, did talk to the WPA. I should know because I have the entire collection on CD rom and his interview was in there.

    No, he was not a soldier, and yes, he was, in the end, happy to be free. But his sympathies during the war were nonetheless with the South. Confusing? It’s called “CONFLICT”! No, not “conflict” as in a battle, but the conflict that any and all human beings experience at some point in their lives.

    Ephram isn’t the only slave in the WPA narratives to express sympathy for the South or to render service to it. Not by a long shot. Some actually took up arms and fought, though not soldiers in the strict sense of the word. Most of them who served in the Confederate army spoke positively of their service, whether they fought or simply rendered some kind of support. I found more disgruntled slaves serving in the Union army than I did in the Confederate army.

    You can harp about how those evil nasty white supremecists manufactured the “happy slave myth” until the cows come home. But truth be told, there is much truth to it. The slaves did not univerally root for the Union army either. They did not think monolithically and their opinions on the war were as varied as anyone else’s.

    • Andy Hall said, on June 30, 2010 at 12:20 am


      Thanks for taking time to comment. It doesn’t “burst my bubble” to learn that Ephram Roberson may have done one of those interviews (see following) — quite the contrary, I appreciate you providing the link. But it does also raise the question about why whoever designed the exhibit did not (as far as I can see in the photos) incorporate any of that material in the exhibit, especially considering that his pension application is one of the key elements of the display. Why on earth did they not include that, given that he discusses his experience during the war? Roberson’s narrative tells us far, far more about his experiences than his pension application does. As I said, it would have been for more informative if the exhibit had taken Roberson or one of the other men mentioned and actually done the work to create a fully-formed profile of him, rather than what they have, which is a scattershot of pictures, a few names and random quotes, none of which are directly connected to the others.

      (Fair to note that there are some differences between the transcription you link to and the pension application; the latter gives his name as Ephram Roberson, lists his masters as F.W. and J.C. Fairchild, and says he was in Louisiana at the end of the war. The caption also says the pension applicant died about 1922, more than a decade before the WPA interviews were done. It seems possible to me that these were different men with similar names.)

      You also wrote that “Ephram isn’t the only slave in the WPA narratives to express sympathy for the South or to render service to it.” Yes, I know — I’ve worked with the WPA materials, too. They’re important evidence that fits into the picture, and are another part of the story.

      You also wrote, “some actually took up arms and fought, though not soldiers in the strict sense of the word.” And that’s the crux of the matter for all of us. The Old Court House exhibit is a perfect example of how many presentations of African Americans in the Confederacy completely ignore the distinctions between soldiers and civilians, and free and slave. Those distinctions are important, and it does not serve anyone’s interests — least of all those we purport to honor — to be careless and sloppy about them.

      Finally, you wrote that “they did not think monolithically and their opinions on the war were as varied as anyone else’s.” I agree. History and people are complicated.

  2. Kevin said, on June 29, 2010 at 11:55 pm


    Sorry about the confusion.

  3. Bill Vallante said, on June 30, 2010 at 1:25 am

    Andy – I rechecked the notes that I copied and pasted out of the Narratives back when I read them. Even I misspelled his name when I wrote the article for the Georgia Heritage Council. The correct spelling, as it is given in the WPA narratives is “Ephriam Robinson, age 87 (at the time of the interview) and it is listed under the Mississippi Narratives. It is possible that whoever put the display together misspelled the name, or, it might be a different person altogether. When I read your post the name seemed to be too close not to be the same guy, but who knows? In any case, Ephriam’s story, as per the WPA was a touching one, at least I thought so.

    As far as why they would not include it in the display, I’d hazard a guess and ask – how many people do you know who bothered to read the “Slave Narratives” in their entirety? Only a crazy man like me would think it worthwhile. It took me a year to read them all and since many of the interviews were transcribed by spelling the words EXACTLY as the person being interviewed pronounced them, it was almost like learning to read a different language. Most folks would have said “forget this”, I think. I almost did. But I read slowly and aloud for the first few hundred or so and it got to be almost like I could hear the voices. For what it’s worth, I had a blast! I don’t think that most folks, be they yank or reb, historian or not, would be remotely interested in doing that.

    The narrative says that Ephriam lived on a plantation in Hinds County Mississippi. Unless they are talkiing about a different man altogether, ( a possibility), his interview says nothing about Louisiana. In fact, now that I re-read his interview, I see that it says his owner’s name was “Mr. Allen Morrison.” Perhaps it’s not the same man at all?

    • Andy Hall said, on June 30, 2010 at 2:10 am


      I used the spelling “Ephram Roberson” because that’s the spelling used on the actual pension form. (You have to enlarge the image to full size to read it.) But Roberson/Robinson made his mark, so it’s possible that whoever filled it out on his behalf spelled it wrong. Misspellings are common in contemporary documents, so that by itself is not definitive, IMO.

      Somewhat more significant (to me) are the other differences regarding the name of his wartime master, where he was at the end of the war, and the reported date of his death . Those first two are not things, it seems, that he would likely confuse or misreport, and the last (wherever that last info came from) is a deal-breaker, if true.

      Roberson’s/Robinson’s story needs some more digging, methinks.

      Thanks for following up.

  4. Tom Crane said, on May 8, 2018 at 8:06 pm

    Fascinating discussion. One thing about your blog, Andy, the comments are almost as interesting as the actual posts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: