Freedom by the Sword - US Army Center Of Military History

372
Freedom by the Sword: The U.S. Colored Troops, 1862–1867
transition, though, should be carefully watched; there is evidently some deeplaid
treachery at the bottom of so singular a move.
Despite Chaplain Turner’s misgivings, black soldiers and their enemies seem to
have come to terms in a way that is not uncommon in trench warfare. In December,
Chaplain Thomas S. Johnson of the 127th USCI wrote: “The enemy are on very friendly
terms, talking . . . to our videttes and advanced pickets. . . . Our pickets in front of
the works here are not more than two hundred paces from the rebs. . . . Last night
four came in our lines as deserters.” The friendly terms of which Johnson wrote did
not mean that Confederate deserters escaped black soldiers’ caustic wit. “As one [deserter]
passed through our inner trench on his way to the rear,” Captain Bacon wrote, “a
somewhat facetious darkey ventured to suggest, rather to the Deserter’s chagrin ‘Well
Johnny! We’re all brothers now, ain’t we?’ which made the whole line roar.” 76
The lull that followed Grant’s failure to puncture the defenses of Richmond lasted
several weeks, until nearly the end of September. In the meantime, west of Richmond,
a Union army led by Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan beat Confederate forces decisively
in the Shenandoah Valley. Grain from the Valley had supplied Confederate armies during
three years of warfare, but Sheridan’s troops ended that and added to Lee’s increasing
worries. Five hundred miles to the southwest, General Sherman’s army occupied
Atlanta, giving a much-needed fillip to President Lincoln’s chances of reelection. 77
In line with his policy of keeping all Union forces in motion at once and pressing
the Confederacy simultaneously on several fronts, Grant decided to “make
another stir,” as he told his wife, around Richmond and Petersburg. According
to his plan, Butler’s Army of the James would attack north of the river, toward
Richmond, while to the south the Army of the Potomac would hold the Confederates
around Petersburg in their trenches, unable to send reinforcements against the
main assault lest Union troops walk into the undefended rail center. One city or
the other, Grant told Butler, was apt to fall. Since quick movement was essential to
success, “the troops will go light,” carrying besides their rifles only blanket rolls,
three days’ rations, and sixty rounds of ammunition per man. Wagons would follow
later with more rations and ammunition. 78
Enough regiments of U.S. Colored Troops had joined the siege by late September
to form three small divisions. In the Army of the Potomac, Ferrero’s division of
the IX Corps included five infantry regiments from the free states and four raised in
76 Merrill to Dear Father, 21 Aug 1864; Christian Recorder, 17 September 1864; Bacon to Dear
Kate, 26 Sep 1864 (“As one”). This incident seems to have occurred in the 29th Connecticut, for
both Bacon and 1st Lt. H. H. Brown, another officer in the regiment, mention it. H. H. Brown to Dear
Friends at Home, 21 Sep 1864, H. H. Brown Papers, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford. For
another instance of jests at prisoners’ expense, see Leon F. Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long: The
Aftermath of Slavery (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 102. Bell I. Wiley, The Life of Billy Yank: The
Common Soldier of the Union (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1952), pp. 354–56, gives instances of
fraternization between Confederates and white Union troops. On live-and-let-live in the First World
War, see John Keegan, The Face of Battle (New York: Viking Press, 1976), pp. 209–10; a veteran’s
recollections are in Robert Graves, Good-Bye to All That: An Autobiography (London: Jonathan
Cape, 1929), pp. 134, 181–82, 245.
77 McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pp. 774–80.
78 OR, ser. 1, vol. 42, pt. 2, p. 1059 (“the troops”); Simpson, Ulysses S. Grant, p. 380 (“make another”).