A few days ago, I posted an article on Facebook that's gotten as much attention and commentary as anything I've ever shared. I ran across the article on www.newspapers.com during a search for the name of an enslaved ancestor of one of my gen-friends. My search terms were "Curtis slave Raleigh". Instead of finding anything about the enslaved individual for whom I was searching, I came upon this article.
Clipping A (Click to view.)
Found on Newspapers.com
As I read this article, I just couldn't believe my eyes! Here were the names of 63 enslaved men, with their owners' names given! And, not only that, but these men were being drafted into service (presumably) for the Union Army! Wow! I'd never seen anything like this. I was so excited, I just HAD to share this document with my Facebook friends; and so I did!
I posted the article on my page, and in several relevant groups, and, as I mentioned, above, it garnered much attention in the genealogy community. Lots of questions were asked, but I didn't have the answers to any of them, nor did I have the time to research it as I was preparing for an upcoming presentation. However, now that said presentation is in the past, I've taken some time, today, to try to gain more insight about, and context for, this article. Here's what I've learned in the short amount of time I've had to dedicate to this:
1. On Monday, May 16, 1864, it was announced that the Governor of Maryland had made a Proclamation calling for two or three regiments to be raised to relieve troops serving within the state, so that those men could go to aide in the war effort in Richmond, Virginia. These volunteers would not be sent outside of the state of Maryland, without giving their own consent. The period of service would be for 100 days.
Clipping B:
 |
| Source: Newspapers.com - The Baltimore Sun, 16 May, 1864, Mon, Page 2 |
In the days that followed, the papers were filled with ads soliciting recruits to fulfill the 100 days of service to the Union.
Clipping C: (Click to view.)
Found on Newspapers.com
2. In the final sentence of Clipping B, it's stated that if enough men didn't voluntarily enroll within 10 days, a draft would be implemented. The date on the article I first shared on Facebook (above) was May 31, however, before I found the Proclamation, I'd already been thinking, "If I found one article listing enrollees, there are probably more!", and I was right. I found several more articles like the one I'd posted. Here's the earliest one I found, which was published on May 25, 1864.
Clipping D: (Click to view.)
<
Found on Newspapers.com
But, what's confusing, to this researcher is the statement in this article (below), published on the same day and in the same paper as Clipping C, which says that the names of the "colored" persons enrolled had to be removed from the draft lists, because those men were not eligible for militia service. If those names were so removed, then, presumably neither the free men of color, nor those enslaved men whose names are listed in these articles ever mustered into service.
Clipping E: (Click to view.)
3. Still, even as late as May 30th, men of color were still being enrolled in the draft for the 100 days of service. (See Clipping D.) It would seem that they'd stop enrolling them, if they were going to follow provisions of the militia law of Maryland (as stated in Clipping E), but nothing seems to have changed.
Clipping F: (Click to view.)
Found on Newspapers.com
Clipping G: (Click to view.) Found on Newspapers.com
4. What I did find, on this same date, was a list of
"Exemptions" to the draft, which would take place on June 6, 1864. This article states that it has been determined that
the only reason for exemption would be "actual physical disability" and, although it does say that enrollment made by the 1862 militia would be used, there is no mention of exempting people of color, and there is no such category on the exemption list, shown. As a matter of fact, there are people of color named as exempt, but in each case it is for one of the acceptable reasons, not because of their race.
Clipping H: (Click to view.)
5. As I moved toward concluding this post, it occurred to me that I had not looked up the 1862 Militia List, which had been repeatedly referred to as being used as the basis for accepting enrollees to this 1864 100 Day Draft. So, I finally Googled it, and guess what I found? My results pointed me to the Militia ACT of 1862, and here is what it states in Section 12 of the Provisions for this Act:
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.
So, there you have it. Once it was determined that the lists of enrollees from 1862 would be used, the Maryland Militia Provisions became mute. No names would be deleted from the lists of enrollee, based on race, alone. None. Nada. Nil.
No matter what, the information in these articles is genealogically rich, and filled with promise for researchers who may descend from any of the enslaved, enslavers, or free people of color names therein. I pray that this work will be a blessing to someone.
Renate
Sources:
www.newspapers.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862
Permalink to this post: https://genea-related.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-one-hundred-days-draft-slave-names.html
Any reference to this work is to be accredited to Renate Yarborough Sanders, Genealogist. Reposts are permitted with written permission of the author.
