Equality in Pay for the USCT

Very often when I am researching one of the veterans from Williamson County, I encounter an issue or term that I'm not familiar with and it takes me down an investigative path or "rabbit hole" that turns out to be one significant to understanding the US Colored Troops in a larger context. Its not surprising really - each man is a case study of their broader experience. So please indulge me as we take a side trip to discuss the phrase "Free on or Before April 19, 1861" and how that led to an exploration of the fight for equal pay by the African American veterans of the Civil War.

As I was compiling my research into the men from Williamson County who served in the US Colored Troops I would occasionally come across a note in their file that they were "Free on or before April 19, 1861."  At first, I was thrilled!  I thought that this was clear evidence of their status before the War - information that is often very scant.  However, the more I looked into it, the more I realized that this information may not be entirely reliable and that there is much more to the story than just their possible emancipation status.

Notation of "Free on or before Apr. 19, 1861" in William Holmes' military records. Private Holmes served in the 5th Massachusetts Colored Cavalry. He settled and died in Williamson County, Tennessee after the War.

To understand why this notation was in the men's files in the first place, we need to skip forward a little, though, to 1862.

Section 6 of the Militia Act of 1862 gave President Lincoln the authority to arm African American men (slaves or free) by borrowing language from the Emancipation Proclamation. Within it Congress embedded a provision that provided for the unequal payment of African American and white soldiers:

SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to receive into the service of the United States, for the purpose of constructing intrenchments, or performing camp service or any other labor, or any military or naval service for which they may be found competent, persons of African descent, and such persons shall be enrolled and organized under such regulations, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws, as the President may prescribe.
. . .

SEC. 15. And be it further enacted, That all persons who have been or shall be hereafter enrolled in the service of the United States under this act shall receive the pay and rations now allowed by law to soldiers, according to their respective grades: Provided, That persons of African descent, who under this law shall be employed, shall receive ten dollars per month and one ration, three dollars of which monthly pay may be in clothing.

Under this authority, Congress provided that African American soldiers would be paid only $10 per month with $3 monthly that could be deducted for their uniforms. During this time, white privates were paid $13.50 per month. As you can imagine, this did not sit well with many - both black and white.  Initially it was relevant primarily for the men serving in the individual state's African American regiments - the first to be formed - such as the famed 54th & 55th Massachusetts Infantries and 5th Massachusetts Cavalry.  When the USCT was established on May 22, 1863, this section of the Militia Act applied to them as well.  The discriminatory payment was seen by many as a default on a promise to the soldiers who had enlisted.  The soldiers themselves obviously felt this way but so did the Governors and many of the officers who had recruited and enlisted them.  

Letter from Corporal Gooding
National Archives

In September of 1863 Corporal James Henry Gooding of the 54th Massachusetts sent a letter to President Lincoln pleading their case.  Corporal Gooding was not new to writing eloquent letters - he had been a war correspondent for northern newspapers since his enlistment.  In his letter to the President, he eloquently asked, "Are we soldiers or are we laborers? . . . You caution the Rebel Chieftain, that the United States knows no distinction in her Soldiers. She insists on having all her Soldiers of whatever creed or Color, to be treated according to the usages of War. Now if the United States exacts uniformity of treatment of her Soldiers from the Insurgents, would it not be well and consistent to set the example herself by paying all her Soldiers alike?"

In December of 1863 Secretary of War Stanton made his annual report in which he extolled the performance of the African American troops thus far in the War effort and recommended the removal of the discriminatory provisions. 

Reverend Samuel Harrison,
Photo courtesy of the Samuel Harrison House

The following spring, Governor John A. Andrew of Massachusetts tried to force the issue. In March, 1864, at Governor Andrew's request, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner delivered a petition, along with a letter from the Governor, to President Lincoln asking him to have Attorney General Edward Bates investigate a claim by Reverend Samuel Harrison, a chaplain - and thereby an African American officer - in the 54th Massachusetts Infantry.  Rev. Harrison had requested pay of $100 per month - the standard pay for a chaplain in the Army; the paymaster in Hilton Head (where they were stationed) refused.  

Outline of the Facts and Finding of the Attorney General's Opinion Regarding the Case
 of Reverend Samuel Harrison, Chaplain of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry

On April 23, 1864 the Attorney General ruled on the case in favor of Rev. Samuel Harrison. In summarizing his analyses of the various applicable laws he came to this conclusion:

To assume that because Mr. Harrison is a person of African descent he shall draw only the pay which the law establishes for the class it obviously refers to, and be deprived of the pay which another law specifically affixes to the office he lawfully held would be, in my opinion, a distortion of both laws, not only unjust to him, but in plain violation of the purpose of Congress. . . . I am also of opinion that your constitutional obligation, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, makes it your duty to direct the Secretary of War to inform the officers of the pay department of the army that such is your view of the law, and I do not doubt that it will be accepted by them . . . 

The issue appeared to be settled for black officers by virtue of this ruling but pressure was building to address it for the lower ranking men.  The northern regiments in particular were protesting the unfair payments and the results were occasionally violent.  In a few instances soldiers had been courtmartialed and several executed for perceived mutiny in protesting the lower payments.  The Sea Island area off of Georgia - where the South Carolina and Massachusetts  regiments were stationed - was the nexus of the violence and protests.  A good article that goes into more detail is available here. And this article describes what a tinderbox the Massachusetts regiments had become over the issue. 

As cries for reform grew louder from the soldiers, their officers, sympathetic Congressmen and portions of the public - especially in the North- Congress decided to address the problem through an amendment to the appropriations bill for the Army.   Major George Stearns who had recruited soldiers right here in the Nashville area even resigned his post, partly over this issue as is nicely described in this article.

The (Boston) Liberator, Friday, May 6, 1864, p1

However, as the bill worked its way through Congress, revisions introduced a distinction between pay for those who were free when they enlisted and those who enlisted as men who had been enslaved.

On May 23, 1864, Massachusetts Senator Sumner wrote President Lincoln a letter from the Senate Chambers and attached a memo describing his concerns about the new bill.  I am going to transcribe them below because with some commentary because I think his analysis and his description of the history of the process is interesting. 

Charles Sumner to Abraham Lincoln, Monday, May 23, 1864

Senate Chamber, 23d May '64

My dear Sir,
 The Senate attached its Bill to equalize pay -- as an amendment to the Army appropriation Bill. This bill is identical with the first two pages which you showed me last evng.
The enclosed memdm will show how the Army Bill now stands.
Should the House amendment prevail, it would, probably, exclude most persons in the two [South Carolina] regiments & also in the [Louisiana] regiments from its benefits [because they were composed primarily of former slaves]; but it would cover the [Massachusetts] regiments [because most of those men had been free when they enlisted since Massachusetts was a free state].
Faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner
His summary continues . . .

Charles Sumner to Abraham Lincoln, Monday, May 23, 1864

Charles Sumner to Abraham Lincoln, Monday, May 23, 1864

Army Appropriations Bill HR 198, Now in Committee of Conference, Senate Attached its Bill (No. 145) equalizing the pay of white and colored soldiers as an amendment to the above entitled act (HR 198).  The House concurred? in the Senate amendment as follows: "Strike out Section 4 and insert as follows 'That all free persons of color who have been or may be mustered into the military service of the United States shall, from the date of their enlistment, receive . . .   the same uniforms, clothing, arms, equipment, camp, equipage, rations, medical & hospital attendants, pay & _____ & bounty as other soldiers of the regular or volunteer forces of the US or like arm of the service.'  The above amendment is in lieu of the section giving full pay from the date of enlistment to all colored soldiers to whom it had been promised by authority of the War Department.

Charles Sumner to Abraham Lincoln, Monday, May 23, 1864

See Edwin M. Stanton to Edward Bates, June 17, 1864; Bates to Stanton, June 20, 1864; Lincoln to Bates, June 24, 1864; and Stanton to Lincoln, June 24, 1864.]

On June 15, 1864, the 34th Congress of the United States passed this bill which codified the language "free on the 19th day of April, 1861."

Section 15, as enacted, US Congressional Documents website 

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=013/llsl013.db&recNum=157

On June 17, 1864, President Lincoln wrote to Attorney General Bates requesting his opinion as to the effect the new law would have on the attempt to equalize pay for African American soldiers:

“I require your opinion in writing as to what pay, bounty, and clothing are allowed by law to persons of color who were free on the 19th day of April, 1861, and who have been enlisted and mustered into the military service of the United States between the month of December, 1862 and the 16th of June 1864. Please answer as you would do, on my requirement, if the act of June 15th 1864 had not been passed; and I will so use your opinion as to satisfy that act.”

Attorney General Edward Bates replied to President Lincoln a few days later - his correspondence displays his confusion regarding the law’s impact on black soldiers and on his new role is overseeing the law:

On Saturday afternoon I had the honor to receive your letter of the 17th (Friday), with a copy of the act of Congress of June 15. 1864, and a request for my opinion upon a question “in reference to what pay, bounty and clothing is allowed by law, to persons of color who were free on the 19th day of April 1861, and who have been enlisted and mustered into the military service of the United States, between the month of December 1862, and the 16th of June 1864.”

I confess myself at a loss to know (so as to answer satisfactorily to myself) the precise meaning of the question, or the precise point upon which a doubt exists in your Department, as to the amount of pay, bounty and clothing of the persons indicated, under laws passed prior to the 15th of June 1864.

I am the more induced to desire a specific statement of the question, because the 4th section of the act (of June 15, 1864) to which you refer, is very peculiar in its phraseology. It does not give, or purport to give to the class of troops indicated, any thing whatever, to which they had not a perfect right, by prior laws. It provides only that they shall “be entitled to receive the pay, bounty and clothing allowed to such persons by the laws existing at the time of their enlistment.” It seems to me therefore that any question as to the amount of pay, bounty and clothing to be paid to such troops, must, of necessity, arise under the previous laws, and not under the act of June 15. 1864. And I should be ready to comply, with alacrity, with your request for an opinion upon any specific question of law, arising under any of those prior acts.

But the said 4th section is very peculiar, in another respect. It does not require the Attorney General to give any opinion to any officer. That is amply provided for by other statutes, which make it his duty, in the cases specified, to give “opinion and advice” to the President and the Heads of Departments. But it goes far beyond that. It purports to make him a final judge of the matter, by enacting that “the Attorney General of the United States is hereby authorized to determine any question of law arising under this provision ” i.e. this 4th section. And this is clearly a new and special delegation of power, to hear and determine questions of law, without and beyond the general duty of the Attorney General, to give opinion and advice to the President and the heads of Departments.

I make these suggestions sir, upon the supposition that there may be questions arising under the acts prior to that of June 15. 1864, touching the pay, bounty, and clothing of the persons indicated, and that, if so, you will be pleased to direct the question to be so stated as to enable me to give direct and specific answers, which I will endeavor to do, with all convenient speed.

It appears as though Congress was trying to address the issue for the northern regiments in particular - such as the men from Massachusetts regiments (who were presumed to have been "Free before April 19th".) This was problematic from the start and presented many difficulties.

New York Tribune, August 12, 1864

This letter to the the Editor of the New York Tribune published August 12, 1864 laid out the problems nicely.  The author, Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginsworth, was a colonel of an African American regiment raised in South Carolina and an ardent abolitionist. His letter criticizes the Army for creating such a complicated payment system that seems calculated purely to try to save a few dollars and he went on to say, "But the Government should have thought of this before it made the contract with these men and received their services. When the War Department instructed Brigadier-General Saxton, August 25, 1862, to raise five regiments of negroes in South Carolina, it was known very well that the men so enlisted had only recently gained their freedom. But the instructions said: "The persons so received into service, and their officers, to be entitled to and receive the same pay and rations as are allowed by law to volunteers in the service." Of this passage Mr. Solicitor Whiting wrote to me: "I have no hesitation in saying that the faith of the Government was thereby pledged to every officer and soldier enlisted under that call."  Where is that faith of the Government now?

The men who enlisted under the pledge were volunteers, every one; they did not get their freedom by enlisting; they had it already. They enlisted to serve the Government, trusting in its honor. Now the nation turns upon them and says: Your part of the contract is fulfilled; we have had your services. If you can show that you had previously been free for a certain length of time, we will fulfil the other side of the contract. If not, we repudiate it. Help yourselves, if you can.  In other words, a freedman (since April 19, 1861) has no rights which a white man is bound to respect. He is incapable of making a contract. No man is bound by a contract made with him. Any employer, following the example of the United States Government, may make with him a written agreement receive his services, and then withhold the wages. He has no motive to honest industry, or to honesty of any kind. He is virtually a slave, and nothing else, to the end of time.

Under this order, the greater part of the Massachusetts colored regiments will get their pay at last and be able to take their wives and children out of the almshouses, to which, as Governor Andrew informs us, the gracious charity of the nation has consigned so many. . . ."

This letter is so interesting for many reasons - the support the white officer gives to his troops, the eloquent cry for fairness, the mention of the poverty facing the families of the Massachusetts regiments (and presumably still facing the families of the men of the South Carolina regiments), and the discussion of how this decision could impact opinions of Americans in greater society regarding the willingness to honor contracts with African Americans.

Circular No. 60 - August 1, 1864

Six weeks later, on August 1, 1864, by order of the Secretary of War, Circular No. 60 went into effect - this was the military order that implemented the June 1864 legislation; it stated: 

"all officers commanding. . . colored troops, will immediately make a thorough investigation and examination of the men belonging to their commands who were enlisted prior to January 1, 1864, with a view to ascertaining who of them were free men on or before April 19, 1861; the fact of freedom to be determined in each case on the statement of the soldier, under oath, takin in connection with the most reliable information that can be obtained from other sources."

In other words, the white officers were to question their African American soldiers and ask them (under oath) whether they were free before the pertinent date. Those men who were determined to have been free on or before that date were to be:

"mustered for pay accordingly. Such muster shall be authority for the Pay Department to pay said soldiers from the time of their entry into service to the 1st day of January, 1864, the difference between the pay received by them as soldiers under their present enlistments and the full pay allowed by law at the same period to white soldiers."

So this meant that those men that swore to their freedom before the specified date would be rewarded with additional pay. While it doesn't state it in this order the difference in pay amounted to this:

• The men who had been free BEFORE the date were to be paid $13 per month and allowed $3.50 per month for clothing (for a total of $16.50) 
• The men who had been free AFTER the date received $7 per month and were allowed $3 per month for precisely the same articles of clothing (for a total of $10) 

This oath reportedly led one creative colonel in the 54th Massachusetts to contrive way of asking that left some wiggle room; he asked his soldiers to swear that they “owed no man unrequited labor on or before the 19th day of April, 1861.” It is believed that sometimes sympathetic officers may have looked the other way when southern men who had clearly been enslaved said they had been free - or in some cases - in order to help equalize the pay they just went ahead and wrote on their statements that they were free.  If you come across a statement that your ancestor was "free on or before the 19th day of April 1861" and have no other evidence regarding his status I would encourage you to take this with a grain of salt.  Look for them as a free person of color in the census for 1860 and previous years.  But also look for other evidence that they may have been enslaved.  Unfortunately I don't think you can rely on this statement that this is clear evidence of their free status.