Post #347,285
9/3/11 4:25:41 PM
|
I read it just fine
http://www.blackconf...s_website_23.html
There are two images above. (Figure 1.) On the left, Lot Allen enlisted with the Union Army 21st United States Colored Troops (USCT) Company A as an "on order cook." On the right, William Dove enlisted with the Confederate States Army North Carolina 5th Cavalry Company D as a "cook." Both men contribute to United States Military history; and their soldier service records are each recorded in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). which one do you intend to deny their military contributions?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,287
9/3/11 4:32:04 PM
|
You think there were 3,000 - 10,000 black fifes in the CSA?
|
Post #347,290
9/3/11 4:53:03 PM
|
dunno, lets take a look
http://www.blackconf...e_unknown_38.html
. At the November 1861 grand review, there were 33 black officers, 731 black enlisted men. that gets me to 764. 88 in alabama gives me 852 from the pension records. South Carolina war pension records 328, total now 1180. Tennessee shows 269 total now 1449. 518 in Virginia total now 1967. Now we have a report from Steiner, Sept 10th 1862 that a rebel army of 64k was advancing including around 3k negro troops. Now intel reports and after action reports can be subjective but that was one army in the field. Cumulatively there well may have been a lower bound of 3k black troops thru out the confederacy. http://books.google....onepage&q&f=false they were clearly under arms.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,292
9/3/11 5:14:31 PM
|
You might want to find another source.
http://cwmemory.com/...ent-bruce-levine/
Update: Bruce Levine emailed the following to me: ÂOf course  as would (should?) be clear to anyone who hears or reads the text of my short talk  my point was that facts like the ones I cited are today misconstrued as proof for the preposterous claim that the Confederate army included thousands of black soldiers. That two people who enthusiastically participate in this kind of shameless distortion of historical facts should do the same to my own expose of such chicanery just seems par for the course.Â
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,293
9/3/11 5:25:56 PM
|
So the report by Lewis H Steiner.
Diary kept during the rebel occupation of Frederick Maryland in the fall of 1862. Published as a representative of the Federal (union) side in an official capacity and published in 1863 is trumped by some yankee Kevin Levine, who is representing another yankee also named Levine, who was complaining about being misquoted? I think you need to find another source. Preferably drawn from the historical record.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,294
9/3/11 5:44:31 PM
|
Occam's Razor.
The site you're using has been shown to be publishing incorrect information. They are not trustworthy.
The Civil War started 150 years ago. It is well-documented and well studied. Some obscure web site is not more credible than actual historians who have dedicated their professional lives to studying the topic.
http://thelede.blogs...ederate-soldiers/
As Kevin Sieff reported in The Washington Post on Wednesday, historians are wondering how a fourth-grade textbook in Virginia was approved despite including the spurious claim that ÂThousands of Southern blacks fought in the Confederate ranks, including two black battalions under the command of Stonewall Jackson.Â
Asked about her sources, the textbookÂs author, Joy Masoff  whose other books include ÂFire! and ÂOh Yikes! HistoryÂs Grossest, Wackiest Moments  cited Ervin Jordan, a University of Virginia historian who is the author of ÂBlack Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia.Â
Like other noted historians, Mr. Jordan told The Post that while there is documentary evidence that some African-Americans fought for the Confederacy, ÂThereÂs no way of knowing that there were thousandsÂ
. And the claim about Jackson is totally false.Â
Why do you go in for these ridiculous fabrications pushed by fringes of the right wing in this country?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,298
9/3/11 6:35:58 PM
|
Ahh, the laugh test
C'mon 'nother, you can't point that out to box.
That's cheating.
|
Post #347,307
9/3/11 8:46:27 PM
|
FFS are you claiming that the description
on page 19 of the book published in 1863 is a lie? Explain why it is a lie, and being used as a reference by a site you dont like 148 years later is not a valid reason
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,311
9/3/11 9:09:18 PM
|
Ok...
The word "negroes" appears twice in that book, "negro" once. If they were major characters in the story, one would think they'd get more than an off-hand mention.
The book reads like a novel to me, with its omnipotent narrator. It doesn't read like a true eyewitness account. He's not a dispassionate narrator, either, in my reading of the first 20 pages.
http://theaporetic.com/?p=651
[...]
Even though General Lee in January 1865 requested that the CSA Congress enlist slaves, they still resisted the idea. Howell Cobb of Georgia in January of 1865 called the use of negroes as soldiers Âthe most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began, continuing, Âyou cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers.Â
The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong.Â3
So even in November of 1864, when the rebel army was starving, and in desperate straits, the CSA congress still opposed enlisting slaves, and it was not legal to do so until March of 1865.
So where does the claim of black Confederate soldiers come from?
Well, when Richmond fell the Union Army did find some partial companies of slaves who were training as soldiersÂthe exact number is unclear, 200 at most, says David Blight.4
The single biggest source for this, though, is very startling and worth looking at. Northern Dr. Lewis H. Steiner witnessed the Confederate capture of Frederick, MD in 1862. Steiner wrote ÂOver 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [of Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.Â
.and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army.Â5
People who want to believe that loyal slaves fought for the Confederacy take this very strong account, and assume that it represents the average number of black soldiers in the Confederate Army, and conclude that as many as 50,000 black men fought for the confederacy! 6
There are all sorts of problems with this. A: was Steiner right about the number? B: was he right that he saw soldiers, and not slaves in support units? C: can you extrapolate what he saw to apply to the rest of the Confederate Army D: what was SteinerÂs agenda?
SteinerÂs account, which can be read on Google Books, is worth examining. Steiner was a partisan: a dedicated Yankee, his account of the Confederate Army is clearly designed to ridicule and belittle. He mocks the CSA soldiers for being dirty and ill smelling. He writes, of the black soldiers: ÂThe fact was patent, and rather interesting when considered in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for the National defence. Was he reporting an accurate number, or trying to mock the CSA and its Army? ItÂs also worth noting that SteinerÂs account describes Howell Cobb, quoted above, as marching into Frederick with this column of 3000 black troopsÂthe same Howell Cobb who would write, less than three years later: Âyou cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers.Â
The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong. Can Steiner be right?
Meanwhile, none of the other accounts from the occupation of Frederick support this observation. None of the confederate soldiers who were at Fredrick write about black Confederate soldiersÂin fact, as Chandra Manning points out, white CSA soldiers were for the most part strongly opposed to using slaves in the Army. And again, thereÂs the fact that the govt. of the CSA forbid the enlistment of slaves in 1862, when Frederick fell.
There are no accounts from natives of Frederick of describing 3000 armed black men in town. There are very few accounts from northern soldiers of black troops in arms for the CSA. And keep in mind Civil War battles were heavily covered by reporters. Frederick is not far from Washington. There are no contemporary accounts from reporters of large numbers of armed black soldiers in the CSA.
So we have a case of one sourceÂSteinerÂbeing taken as gospel and then enlarged to the point where it has turned into 50,ooo black soldiers, approximately 1/3 the total CSA Army in 1865.
ItÂs a case of wish fulfillment. People want to believe in black Confederates, and they reuse to let historical evidence stand in their way. ItÂs possible some black men fought for the confederacy: itÂs a big country, there are a lot of people in it with a lot of motives. ItÂs very likely some slaves and possibly free blacks served in support positions and as servants. Nostalgia, after the war, might remember that service as soldiering. To turn it into a large scale phenomenon of black men fighting for the Confederacy, you have to ignore the facts.
Emphasis added.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,302
9/3/11 6:53:06 PM
|
Another rebuttal you might like.
http://www.armchairg...8284&postcount=43
Commenting on several excerpts from primary sources:
Remember that Jefferson Davis, his Sec of War, Confederate Congress, & several of the top generals of the Confederacy all advocated the killing of Union black soldiers & their white officers for enciting "servile insurrection". To go from a policy of killing armed blacks to allowing them on the field of battle on your side seems a bit outlandish. The fact that even at the end of the war there were still plenty of people in opposition to the idea of arming slaves EVEN IF IT MEANT SAVING THE CONFEDERACY-is scary.
[...]
What I find interesting here are two things. First is that here is yet another primary account of a Southern officer offering up the major cause of the war. Second is the notion of "black" Confederates. Here you have several divisional commanders scattered throughout the Army of Tennessee declaring that "armed" blacks would be detremental to the existence of the army. Now if there WERE any armed blacks operating in what amounts to the 2nd major army of the Confederacy (after the Army of Northern Virginia in the East), you would think these gentlemen would be aware of it. You would think that the arguments would be along the lines of "well, we have a few blacks in one of my brigades, but they are the exception not the rule", but you don't hear that one bit. To me this is simply more proof that at BEST the notion of armed "black" Confederates is extremely rare.
[...]
Why would the Confederates be so concerned about raising their own black troops when they hated & despised ANY black troops enough to commit these atrocities against them? Armed slave rebellions were FEARED throughout the South. So the idea of arming slaves goes contrary to everything that they stood for.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,308
9/3/11 8:50:10 PM
|
I will quote General Bedford Forrest in rebuttal
In an 1868 interview with General Bedford Forrest, the United States 40th Congress 3rd Session reported that General Forrest said," ÂI want you to understand distinctly, I am not an enemy to the negro. We want him here among us; he is the only laboring class we have, and more than that, I would sooner trust him than a white scalawag or carpet-bagger. When I entered the army I took 47 negroes into the army with me, and 45 of them were surrendered with me. I said to them at the start: 'This fight is against slavery; if we lose it, you will be made free; if we whip the fight, and you stay with me and be good boys, I will set you free. In either case you will be free. Those boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live.'"
quite a bit different from the sneering soliloquy of your blogger
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,310
9/3/11 9:07:19 PM
|
Hold on a second
Haven't you said before that the Civil War War Between The States was not primarily about slavery? That it was a states rights / self-determination issue?
This fight is against slavery.
If we're going to use this guy as our authoritative contemporary source, I guess you'll have to go back on that "not about slavery" thing.
--
Drew
|
Post #347,329
9/4/11 2:03:18 PM
9/4/11 2:24:28 PM
|
it was a war to steal the wealth of the south
the winners succeeded in doing so
I think Bruce Catton is a good scholar of the era. His essay on the 100th anniversary of the emancipation proclamation is telling
Union armies which invaded the South confiscated or destroyed property that helped their foes baled cotton, railroad tracks, factories, stores of food, and the like. Precisely because the slave was admitted to be property, it seemed logical to remove him from his secessionist owners; quite early in the war Maj. Gen. Ben Butler announced that slaves who fled from Confederate masters were Âcontraband of war and could be confiscated like other contraband, and the War Department accepted his view.
http://www.nps.gov/a...ulture/catton.htm
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Edited by boxley
Sept. 4, 2011, 02:24:28 PM EDT
|
Post #347,330
9/4/11 2:26:02 PM
|
Really? - the wealth of the South . . .
. . was completely based on slavery. Freeing the slaves could not "steal" the wealth of the South, it just evaporated. Without slaves there was nothing to steal.
An example is the famous Carolina rice, most of which was exported to England and the rest of Europe for great profit. Growing methods were totally based on slavery, so when the slaves were freed, "Carolina" rice was no longer grown in Carolina. It is now grown primarily in Texas and Louisiana.
|
Post #347,343
9/4/11 6:00:27 PM
|
It wasn't
http://www.pbs.org/w...part4/4p2967.html
To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union.
...
On January 1, 1863, he issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. With it he officially freed all slaves within the states or parts of states that were in rebellion and not in Union hands. This left one million slaves in Union territory still in bondage.
If it were about slavery the slaves in the northern states would have been freed, not just those in the confederate states.
A recent issue of BBC Knowledge had an article about the civil war and covers this. I don't see it online, I'll post some extracts when I get back to Houston.
|
Post #347,349
9/4/11 7:20:53 PM
|
And why were the confederate states trying to secede?
--
Drew
|
Post #347,355
9/4/11 9:32:40 PM
|
why was the union stealing slaves then selling therm?
see confiscated property link above you
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,426
9/7/11 12:04:00 AM
|
I don't deny that slavery was a factor
but as my prior post shows it was about establishing that once a member, always a member
http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU
|
Post #347,431
9/7/11 8:36:34 AM
|
Their Constitutional Rights were being violated by the North
|
Post #347,474
9/7/11 6:53:47 PM
|
A neat, bound copy for $5 ppd?! Order 300M of the suckers.
|
Post #347,478
9/7/11 8:06:16 PM
|
They lost the argument. Thankfully.
|
Post #347,504
9/8/11 11:00:45 AM
|
What argument?
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
I'm not saying this was a "good thing" to be in the Constitution. But really, are you saying it didn't exist? Or that escaping slaves were being returned? Like it or not, the South did have the Law on their side.
|
Post #347,515
9/8/11 1:02:13 PM
|
If it's so clear cut, what was Dred Scott about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Inquiring minds and all that.
The law is rarely as clear as it might appear on reading just the original document.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,533
9/8/11 3:10:30 PM
|
Huh?
Nice try. If Dred Scott had been a suit over a slave owner's right to have their escaped slaves returned from a free state, then you'd be on point. But, you aren't.
Dred Scott sued his owners for his freedom and, ultimately, the USSC said, essentially, he didn't even have standing to sue. The Dred Scott decision was consistent with the Constitution at the time. Which is exactly the point I made originally.
This is the sort of thing that I can almost agree with Fat Tony Scalia about. The Constitution provides for alterations that are deemed unacceptable. That's how it is supposed to work. I'm not naive. If the 13th Amendment had passed prior to April, 1860, there almost certainly still would have been a Civil War as violent as it was in the absence of Amendment 13. But, it should have been done. If it had been, then the North would have truly had the moral, ethical upper hand. But, they didn't, so they don't. Instead Dubya the First (aka A. Lincoln) treated the Constitution as if it were a worthless rag, ignoring the parts that restricted his power and abusing the civil rights guaranteed the people within it. Only after the South lay in ashes did the North do the right thing.
But the war was not fought over morality. Slavery was only tangentially involved. But, you Yankees can keep pretending that wonderful morally superior Christian Soldiers of the North marched southward and whipped up on the stupid, racist Southerners in order to free the slaves. It's a timeless children's fable I have no doubt will be repeated to my great-grandchildren. That is, if the Yankee government in DC lasts that long. ;0)
Aside: The opinion was an overreach, obviously, in that the ruling barred the Congress from barring slavery. But, I did read something that I'm sure I knew once, but had forgotten.
Ironically, Irene Emerson was remarried in 1850 to Calvin C. Chaffee, a northern congressman opposed to slavery. After the Supreme Court decision, Mrs. Chaffee turned Dred and Harriet Scott and their two daughters over to Dred's old friends, the Blows, who gave the Scotts their freedom in May 1857. On September 17, 1858, Dred Scott died of tuberculosis and was buried in St. Louis.
http://americancivil...d/dred_scott.html
|
Post #347,538
9/8/11 4:47:01 PM
|
doffs cap in your direction
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,541
9/8/11 6:13:05 PM
|
We live in alternate universes apparently. :-/
|
Post #347,568
9/9/11 9:10:30 PM
|
Have you been reading "Disunion" in the NYTimes?
I just glanced at it tonight.
I don't think "Dubya the First" is quite the way I would characterize him. Your opinion might change as well after reading this: http://opinionator.b...nts-she-merrimac/
But, perhaps not... ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,657
9/12/11 8:44:05 AM
9/12/11 9:09:08 AM
|
So, because he didn't do it until a year later, ...
it doesn't count? Issuing proclamations that strike down parts of the Constitution without the consent of the governed and without Constitutional Amendments, the suspension of Habeus, are these things not Dubya-esque?
Edit: grammar
Edited by mmoffitt
Sept. 12, 2011, 09:09:08 AM EDT
|
Post #347,660
9/12/11 9:06:29 AM
|
dubya actually used lincum as precedent in his argument
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,312
9/3/11 9:20:40 PM
|
Yeah, Forrest was a great man.
Not.
http://www.balloon-j...ty-plate-will-be/
http://www.balloon-j...-bedford-forrest/
Do you dispute the cites above about it being illegal for blacks to serve as soldiers in the army of the CSA until very late in the war?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,332
9/4/11 2:41:08 PM
|
you mentioned lots of reporters in the war eh?
In the May 10, 1862 number of HarperÂs Weekly, it is reported:
The correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a regiment of mounted negroes, armed with sabres, at Manassas, and that some five hundred Union prisoners taken at Bull Run were escorted to their filthy prison by a regiment of black men.
The image below appeared in HarperÂs on January 10, 1863, captioned ÂRebel Negro Pickets Seen through a Field Glass. http://blog.geneablo...rvin-l-jordan-jr/ now you may claim that this black man's grandfather is lying, feel free. Although the numbers may be in dispute the evidence does show that there were black confederates.
Those 2 cites were a tad biased dont you think?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,336
9/4/11 3:41:35 PM
|
You're dancing around the issue.
Much of the "black confederate soldier" stuff out there is a hoax. Yet another example: http://jubiloemancip...na-native-guards/
http://voices.washin...ack_confeder.html
[...]
After months of heated debate, a severely watered-down version of this proposal became Confederate law in March of 1865. Gen. Richard S. Ewell assumed responsibility for implementing it, and Confederate officials and journalists confidently predicted the enlistment of thousands. But the actual results proved bitterly disappointing. A dwarf company or two of black hospital workers was attached to a unit of a local Richmond home guard just a few weeks before the war's end. The regular Confederate army apparently managed to recruit another 40 to 60 men -- men whom it drilled, fed, and housed at military prison facilities under the watchful eyes of military police and wardens -- reflecting how little confidence the government and army had in the loyalty of their last-minute recruits.
This strikingly unsuccessful last-ditch effort, furthermore, constituted the sole exception to the Confederacy's steadfast refusal to employ African American soldiers. As Gen. Ewell's longtime aide-de-camp, Maj. George Campbell Brown, later affirmed, the handful of black soldiers mustered in Richmond in 1865 were "the first and only black troops used on our side."
Oh, but a Confederate General can't possibly know what the policy of the Confederate Army was, I guess.
Sheesh.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,345
9/4/11 6:09:08 PM
|
hey thanx! you just admitted 1500 black csa troops
The actual 1st Louisiana Native Guards, consisting of Afro-Creoles, was formed of about 1,500 men in April 1861 and was formally accepted as part of the Louisiana militia in May 1862. The Native Guards unit (one of three all-black companies) never saw combat while in Confederate service, and was largely kept at armÂs length by city and state officials; in fact, it often lacked proper uniforms and equipment. from your link, add the 1500 confederate pensioners noted earlier you have the 3k
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,348
9/4/11 6:58:52 PM
|
Read it again. They didn't fight.
|
Post #347,352
9/4/11 9:16:02 PM
|
never said they did, I said they served
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,338
9/4/11 3:48:39 PM
|
You didn't answer my question. Did you miss it?
Do you dispute the cites above about it being illegal for blacks to serve as soldiers in the army of the CSA until very late in the war?
If you don't dispute that, then you're just trolling. If you do, then there's little to discuss since you don't accept what should be irrefutable evidence.
Which is it? Or is it something else? If so, please elaborate.
(And yes, Dennis G at Balloon-Juice doesn't pull his punches. But he gave cites. By "the cites above" I meant quotes in earlier comments of mine.)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,346
9/4/11 6:11:20 PM
|
sorry, I went back thru your links
and dont see anything regarding it being illegal to allow black soldiers in the south.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,351
9/4/11 7:28:42 PM
|
One last time, then I'm done.
http://voices.washin...ack_confeder.html
As a matter of fact, one of Jefferson Davis's generals did advise him to emancipate and arm slaves at the start of the war. But Davis vehemently rejected that advice. It "would revolt and disgust the whole South," he snapped. During the first few years of the war, some others repeated this suggestion. Each time, Richmond slapped it down. Not only would no slaves be enlisted; no one who was not certifiably white, whether slave or free, would be permitted to become a Confederate soldier.
And the Confederacy's policy of excluding blacks from its armed forces was effective. John Beauchamp Jones, a high-level assistant to the secretary of war, scoffed at rumors that the Confederacy had units made up of slaves. "This is utterly untrue," he wrote in his diary. "We have no armed slaves to fight for us." Asked to double-check, Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon confirmed that "No slaves have been employed by the Government except as cooks or nurses in hospitals and for labor."
Why were the leaders so stubborn on this point? Because they were fighting to preserve African American slavery and the racial creed that justified it. Slavery's defenders insisted that blacks were inferior to whites -- uniquely suited to dull, arduous labor but incapable of assuming the responsibilities of free people, citizens or soldiers. As Seddon explained, since the Confederacy had taken that stand both before "the North and before the world," it could "not allow the employment as armed soldiers of negroes." Putting blacks into gray uniforms would be seen as a confession that this ideology was a lie. Even more practically, the Confederacy worried about what black troops would do with their weapons. At the very least they feared (in the words of Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin) that black Confederate soldiers would desert to the enemy "in mass."
I find it curious that so many people who now throw around words like "tyranny" and "slavery" for eventually being required to buy health insurance (or pay a fine) or to wear seat belts (or pay a fine) are compatriots of those who say that there were thousands of blacks who willingly took up arms and fought for a system that actually enslaved people. Would those who claim that there actually were such thousands have been among them if they were in their shoes? Would you?
I wouldn't.
In closing, have a read of this: http://www.bjmjr.net/mcbride/myth.htm
[...]
CleburneÂs Proposal
There was, however, at least one serious proposal for a Black Confederate Army Brigade made by the SouthÂs Major General Patrick R. Cleburne. Cleburne was a general in the Irish Army and volunteered to serve the Confederacy after the Civil War actually began in April of 1861. Meeting with nearly half of Jefferson Davis top generals at Tunnel Hill, Georgia, on January 2, 1864, Cleburne advised his fellow Confederate commanders that Âwe immediately commence training a large reserve of the most courageous of our slaves and that Âwe guarantee freedom within a reasonable time to every slave in the South who shall remain true to the Confederacy in this war.Â
Cleburne at first had the firm support of General Joseph E. Johnston, the SouthÂs second most powerful general after Robert E. Lee. Johnston, in fact, had assembled the generals in his headquarters on the night of January 2, where the proposal was first laid out. Some of the generals there later claimed that they objected to the basic idea of arming black men and liberating them for their service to the South, but nearly all of the 15 top officers at the meeting praised Cleburne for laying out his bold blueprint for victory for the South.
The reaction from Jefferson Davis and his Secretary of War, James A. Seddon, was a blanket rejection. Despite what they saw as the Âpatriotic intents of the gallant author of the memorial and such of his brother officers as may have favored his opinions, they ordered an immediate Âsuppression, not only of the memorial itself, but likewise of all discussion and controversy respecting or growing out of it.Â
[...]
I think I'm done.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #347,353
9/4/11 9:30:23 PM
|
One last time myself
I have read part of the black historian's book who claimed his grand/greatfather fought for the confederacy. Parts of the book is available free on google. Read the first page or two. He isnt giving anyone a pass.
http://books.google....onepage&q&f=false
I am in no way trying to gloss over slavery but I am assuming that many of the traits of the folks of color and indigenous whites is not as cut and dried as the revisionists would leave you to believe. Having spent time in the deep south 12-15 years after the civil rights act passed with many of the same divisions that have festered for generations still very much at the surface I learned a few things. One being that a man regardless of color is proud, and he will fight strangers for his family, land and way of life even if the person/goverment/entity asserting the change claims it is for the better. So while it would surprise you to think that any male black in the south would fight on behalf of the confederacy it doesnt surprise me at all.
As for your cite that only lily liver'ed whites may serve, please explain General Stand Watie, The seminoles who also fought who were often half black, Creeks, choctaws and others. Trying to claim the south was all about rich white people is revisionism at its worst.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,432
9/7/11 8:48:31 AM
|
Or as Shelby noted...
In Richmond, Jefferson Davis repeated, "All we ask is to be let alone," a remark which a Virginia private was to translate into combat terms when he told his captors, "I'm fighting because you're down here."
http://homepage.eirc...Shelby_Foote.html
|
Post #347,331
9/4/11 2:34:16 PM
|
Hmmmm . . . Doesn't say they were armed and fighting.
Says "Those boys stayed with me, drove my teams". Driving teams isn't fighting on the front lines, and the fact so many survived this horribly deadly conflict indicates they were back in the logistics chain - in other words, still slaves doing slave work.
This is purely self-serving spin.
|
Post #347,333
9/4/11 2:44:05 PM
|
so the 90 guys in iraq that support the 10 combat troops
arnt really soldiering? We can save a lot of money on combat pay if that is the case.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,337
9/4/11 3:47:40 PM
|
Yeah, they're already doing that
Or had you not heard about all the contractors we're paying?
--
Drew
|
Post #347,344
9/4/11 6:01:31 PM
|
we are saving money doing that?
What was the working title of the young lady who was captured and raped early in the war, wagon driver or teamster wasnt it?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #347,350
9/4/11 7:25:31 PM
|
What's the question?
Is the important part of your post the "aren't really soldiering" part or the "save money on combat pay" part? I thought it was the soldiering part.
--
Drew
|
Post #347,354
9/4/11 9:31:02 PM
|
pick one, I dont care
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|