Parent, guardian, or master?

[chilidog]

The Official Records, Series III Vol. II (1862) gives the Federal enlistment for minors. His parent, guardian, or master must sign a consent form???? Why did they include the provision for a master?

Chilidog




933. If the recruit be a minor under eighteen (b) years of age, his parent, guardian, or master must sign a consent to his enlisting, which will be added to the preceding declaration, in the following form:
I, ----- -----, do certify that I am the (father, only surviving parent, legal master, or guardian, as the case may be) of ----- -----; that the said ----- ----- is --- years of age; and I do hereby freely give my consent to his enlisting as a soldier in the Army of the United States for the period of five (c) years.
----- -----.

[BLUEHAWK]

:cd:
Chilidog,
Dang! That IS weird. How could it have been that anyone said to be having a "master" was eligible (or were they?) to enlist?!? Now that you mention it, my impression had been that there was a lot of being "volunteered" or enouraged to join service up north, and that "freedmen" lived only in Yankee territory, so therefore had no "master" whose permission would be needed! Or did they? Were they NOT free legally then? What the heck is this...
Bluehawk

[Tamaroa]

For all we know, we may be misinterpreting what the word "master" means. If it does indeed mean a master of slaves it would legally fit in because slavery was not officially abolished even in the North until the end of the Civil War in 1865 with the passing of the 13,14,15th ammendments which as a group gave black men the right to vote, become citizens, own property, etc.

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill,
Good thinking, quite right, there was at that time an entire system of professional guilds and so forth, indentured servants (such as under which my ancestors were able to get to the colonies from Ireland), and of course the "peculiar institution"...perhaps other classes of "master" as well somehow within the economic structure. Still, it IS intriguing whether there were or might have been instances when a "servant" in any category noticed what amounts to a loophole in the regulations and sought emancipation in that manner. I certainly hope I would have tried to do so had I known of it back then!
Bluehawk

[chilidog]

So, slavery was abolished in the north in '65. The above consent was written in '62. What year were blacks allowed to enlist? If it doesn't refer to blacks, then who?

Chilidog

[Tamaroa]

I believe indentured servants, apprentices, etc were still the norm at the time. I can't think of any other interpretation at the moment.

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill and Chili,
Have we got this right then? There were in ca. 1860-65 "servants" who did not have "masters"
and some who did, but in the latter case the master's permission was required for enlistment and in the former case none was asked?
Bluehawk