Confederate Slave Impressment

Legislative Timeline

Compiled from nelson1946 and martinez2013, but not a comprehensive timeline. Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida had legislation not included on this timeline. Other states, like Georgia, passed temporary impressment laws for particular projects, and several passed laws to protest Confederate statutes and impose penalties for illegal impressments..

Year Month/Day State/CSA Law
1862 Oct. 3 VA Governor could impress slaves for defensive fortification work for up to 2 months; no more than 10,000 slaves (aged 18-45) were subject; and owners compensated $16/mo.
1862 Oct. 31 AL Governor given broad authority to impress slaves; legislature appropriated $1 mil as a fund for compensating owners whose slaves died or were injured
1863 [Early] LA Legislature limits impressment to “one-half of the able-bodied slaves” aged 18 to 50; owners compensated at $1/day. Length of impressment not stated.
1863 Mar. 26 CSA Allowed CSA army officers to impress slaves so long as state legislation allowed. Efforts had to be made to “hire” or contract with owners first. Slaves growing grain or food provisions exempted. Full text.
1863 Oct. 24 CSA General Orders No. 138 gives instructions on March law. Empowered commanding officers & engineers to decide if impress was necessary. Prohibited use of slaves on farms with less than four eligible slaves. Also the quota was 5% of slave pop. for each county, and length of term limited to 60 days except in case of tardy owners.
1864 Feb. 17 CSA Authorized impressment of 20,000 slaves, aged 18 to 50, for any employment. Owners compensated in full in event of loss; otherwise paid $25/mo. Full text. No more than one-fifths of an owners slaves eligible, and if an owner had only one eligible slave, he could not be forced. The full quota was never met.
1864 October CSA The Confederate Conscript Bureau begins to enforce February policy, bypassing state and local officials.
1865 Mar. 11 CSA Monthly pay to owners raised to $60.

Texas

In his February 1863 address to the legislature, Francis Lubbock informed the House and Senate that Confederate and state authorities might “require the labor of adult male slaves on public works of defense. I would, therefore, most respectfully suggest that a law be passed to enable the government to command this species of labor when necessary.”1

Controversies surrounding some of Magruder’s impressment policies in northeast Texas reached Governor Pendleton Murrah in early 1864.

Because Murrah was from Marshall, he received at least one private letter from a local friend, R. R. Haynes, in January 1864, informing him of how much the city had changed now that it was overrun by government functionaries, detached officers, and refugees. The same letter mentions “a low grumbling” in the area on account of Magruder’s slave impressment order for the fortification of Austin, especially since similar orders have already been issued to fortify Shreveport, complete the road of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, etc.2

Another writer from Jefferson told Murrah that he believed that conscription, together with slave impressment, was depleting the labor force needed to get crops out of the field to supply soldiers and families. He believed that the military should have relied more heavily on the impressment of Refugeed Slaves and left those who were performing productive labor behind.3

In a letter sent on January 13, 1864, in compliance with General Orders No. 138, John Bankhead Magruder replied to some of these concerns by stating that “no one more than myself can be impressed with the importance & necessity of giving the agricultural interest an opportunity for raising crops during the ensuing season & I have endeavoured to so direct impressments of negroes as to give planters & farmers an ample opportunity of supplying all the wants of the citizens & the Army,” but he is also concerned about the need for labor to build fortifications.4 He also explains why he singled out Fort Bend, Brazoria, and Matagorda counties for especially deep impressments designed to leave only one able-bodied adult male slave on each plantation.

Murrah, however, was not entirely placated by Magruder, as shown in a lengthy January 17 reply. While he admitted that “much must be conceded to your judgment, as to the number of slaves actually needed for work upon the fortifications,” he presented Magruder with figures on the slave population that, in his mind, necessitated a smaller impress, especially considering the great distances impressed laborers were to be transported. He also warns Magruder about the effect that impressments are having on the “public mind.”5 According to martinez2013, however, these complaints from the public about impressment, paired with complaints on planters’ behalf by state governors, were not exclusive to Texas and may not indicate firm resistance to impressment.

Louisiana

For a letter that seems to be about the sickness among some slaves who have been impressed for labor, see this one from William Lourd to John C. Moore.

Also, OR contains reports of about 5,000 to 7,000 slaves working to fortify Shreveport in late 1863/early 1864.


  1. Message of Governor, February 5, 1863, House Journal of the Ninth Legislature, First Called Session, of the State of Texas, February 2, 1863-March 7, 1863, ed. James M. Day (Austin: Texas State Library, 1963), 24, link.

  2. R. R. Haynes to Pendleton Murrah, January 5, 1864, Records of the Governor Pendleton Murrah, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Box 301-44, Folder 10, http://wcaleb.rice.edu/omeka/items/show/178.

  3. R. H. Ward to Pendleton Murrah, January 4, 1864, Records of the Governor Pendleton Murrah, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Box 301-44, Folder 10. See also Thomas G. Allison to Pendleton Murrah, February 7, 1864, Records of the Governor Pendleton Murrah, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Box 301-44, Folder 15. Allison also reported on the “deep feeling of gloom” settling on people in northeast Texas amidst rumors of impending new impressments of negroes and heavy conscription. Also see John Glass to Pendleton Murrah, February 25, 1864, Records of the Governor Pendleton Murrah, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Box 301-44, Folder 18. Glass reported that in his absence, an enslaved man named Austin was taken from his farm in Fayette County, ostensibly to fortify Austin, but that he had never been returned or heard from again.

  4. J. Bankhead Magruder to Pendleton Murrah, January 13, 1864, Records of the Governor Pendleton Murrah, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Box 301-44, Folder 12.

  5. Pendleton Murrah to J. Bankhead Magruder, January 17, 1864 (copy), Records of the Governor Pendleton Murrah, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Box 301-44, Folder 13.