The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum

Re: History as testimony
In Response To: History vs testimony ()

David --

The testimony of General Lewis is indeed an invaluable historical resource. Too bad this isn't on the Louisiana Message Board!

General Lewis addresses three points we've labored on for some time. He states,

After the city of New Orleans fell, the government of the State was removed to Opelousas, and I went with it. After that the whole system was changed; the militia system was abolished by an act of the confederate congress, and every man in the militia was declared to be in the confederate army.
Under Louisiana statute effective Feb 15, 1862, state militia and volunteer miitia were defined as free white men between the ages of 18 and 45. The Confederate law of Apr 16, 1862, made male citizens within the age range 18 - 35 (later extended to 40 and then 45) liable for Confederate military service. Except for the European Brigade of New Orleans, Confederate law effectively abolished state militia law. In 1862 conscription virtually eliminated the militia in every Confederate state.

Except for limited cases (a state governor giving the Confederate government control of specific militia units), a man could either belong to the militia or the Confederate army. Under normal circumstances, a man who belonged to the militia was not a Confederate soldier. For example, Lewis states that he was never in Confederate service. A man could leave the militia and enroll in Confederate service (and vice-versa), but concurrent service would be called 'double-dipping' in contemporary terms. At any given time, a man would have either been in the militia or in Confederate service, but not both.

Second, this important exchange establishes that the LNG had never been called into active service.

Question--- How was it in regard to the colored men?

Witness--- Do you mean the slaves?

The Chairman. I include all the colored people of the State, as far as your knowledge extends. Were they not friends of the Union?

Witness--- The slaves naturally were. The effect of tho war was to change their status.

Question--- How in reference to those who were not slaves?

Witness---They were with us. I myself reviewed a regiment of colored men in the city of New Orleans, and they were ready to fight for us if we had brought them into requisition.

No one should question the sympathies of the Louisiana Native Guards, who, as Lewis states, "were ready to fight for us". However, prior to passage of the new militia law of Jan 23, 1862, which restricted militia service to white residents in the age range 18 to 45, Lewis confirms that Governor Moore never called the LNG into service of the State of Louisiana. The LNG regiment had organized under the old militia law and appeared on public parade more than once after the war began. However, like most militia units, it was never called up.

Finally, Lewis states that there were no slaves in the Confederate army. You provided a source for great numbers of slaves attached to individual officers and men in the Confederate army. Lewis is clearly addressing the issue of slaves in actual Confederate service. To the best of his personal knowledge, there were none. This statement would contradict those who assert that slaves in considerable numbers actually served in the Confederate army.

Messages In This Thread

History vs testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as first-hand testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: Articles of War -No. 62-
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony
Re: History as testimony