Dear History members: In February, 2010, History boards will begin the process of upgrading our community message board software. We are moving to a new community software, KickApps, that will provide greater functionality and ease of use. This transition will take place during the last part of February; the last day that the current boards will be available to you will be Feb. 28, 2010. We realize that many of you have posted great content over the years and might want to save your posts. Please take this time to go back through the boards and save what you want to keep on your own computer. These boards will no longer be accessible after February 28, 2010. If you would like to ask a question about the new boards, click here: http://boards.history.com/forum/Message-Boards-User/108 There will be more details to come as we roll out the new community software. Thank you for your continued patronage. We'll see you on the new, improved boards! Rebecca Cooper AETN Community Manager
|
Posts:
2,381
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(121 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 14, 2009 6:01 AM
|
> Unionblue,
>
> >> No, that has not been my contention at all and I
> doubt if you will find a single statement by me that
> says such. If these men served as soldiers, freely,
> voluntarily, or even as free blacks who were
> conscripted to serve in the Confederate army, and
> died in that service, they should be honored.
>
> If you really mean it then I'll wait with baited
> breath for the first time you actually say well done
> to the honouring of a black Confederate soldier. Is
> this grudging recognition, on your part, contingent
> upon having died in service or is it your opinion, as
> an ex military man, that no soldier should be so
> honoured if he survived the war?
csa-today,
Thank you for your indulgence, as reserved as it may be, on my view that any soldier, black or white, Confederate or Union, should be honored for their service.
And no, as an ex-military man, I have no objection to those who served their country at great risk to themselves and survived, should be honored. Just prove to me it is not a slight-of-hand show to dishonor actual history and that he was truly a soldier and not a slave who had no choice in the matter.
> >> History has shown the primary reason the
> Confederacy seceded from the Union was the
> protection, preservation, and expansion of slavery.
> It is a historical fact that cannot be denied or
> reduced or shoved aside. The vanished Confederacy
> needs no help from me to put it in a "bad light" even
> if I wanted to.
>
> The issue of slavery (or any other poltical issue),
> as a cause of war, is a legitimate argument in the
> proper venue, but not as a distracting issue in a
> discussion about honouring soldiers be they black or
> white or whether they fought for the CSA or the USA.
>
> >> No, if that is what is really occuring, I have no
> problem with it at all. I would like very much to see
> actual history being learned by both blacks and
> whites, especially about the Civil War. Until that
> period of history is fully resolved, I think neither
> can advance their understanding of one another.
>
> I'm glad to hear that, for some reason I had started
> to believe that you opposed honouring black
> Confederates lest it somehow distracted from the
> discussion of slavery.
The fact of the matter many served in the Union and Confederate armies for many different personal reasons. If a black slave served as a soldier in the Confederate army because he believed it was his duty to do so, to earn respect and gain favor later on, to improve his lot or to gain his and his family's freedom after the war, he deserves to be recognized. The fact that many men, black or white, northern or southern, enlisted for various personal reasons, will never distract that they all fought for the policial and social goals of their respective regions, to include the South fighting for the institution of slavery. Recognizing soldiers for their voluntary sacrifice can never distract from the discussion of slavery, IMO.
> >> You should not make claims about something I have
> never said. The fact of the matter is, some of the
> national leadership of the SCV and some of the state
> camps ARE making claims about the numbers of blacks
> who were soldiers and are using these supposed
> "facts" to advance an agenda that is not based in
> historical fact. Black men have been given honors
> about their service as black Confederate soldiers
> when it was shown they were not.
>
> If you will provide your sources that say the SCV
> national leadership is claiming black Confederate
> soldiers numbered anywhere near 60, 000- to 90,000
> then I will take a look at it. I assume you know who
> the national SCV leadership is, but in any case, if
> they are claiming those numbers I will not hesitate
> to say that I disagree with them. I don't doubt, for
> a moment, there are people out there, both in and out
> of the SCV and UDC, who have bought into the
> exaggerated claims made by the black academics, but
> unless you can show differently, it is not the
> official position of those organisations.
csa-today, so it is your considered opinion that the national leadership of the SCV, perhaps not all, but some, are actively trying to diminish the issue of slavery as a cause of the Civil War, and that the promotion of honoring black Confederates in order to promote this idea is not being espoused or encouraged by those in the national leadership?
I am interested in a more informed reply, but I confess, my previous notes that led me to this personal conclusion are long gone, scattered or destroyed to make room for other topice I discuss. Let me get back to you on this and my evidence that led me to such,
> >> The policy of diminishing slavery and uping the
> numbers of blacks who were actually soldiers and not
> slaves simply being forced to serve may be uneven
> amongst the SCV camps across the country, but it has
> happened and no corrections or denouncements have
> been made of those occurances. It gives the
> impression that the SCV as a whole condones such.
>
> Here you go with your diminishing slavery diatribe
> again, that's what is really bugging you, not the
> number or status of black Confederates the SCV
> chooses to recognise.
It bugs me because it appears to me, and others, that this is the hidden reason for such "honoring" of black Confederates. Not that long ago, in terms of US history, the UCV, the ancestor of the present-day SCV, was actively DENYING blacks soldiers, slave or free, ever served in the Confederate army at all. My question remains, is the current SCV truly honoring black Confederate soldiers, or in its rush to present a version of history it finds more politically acceptable, using such events for its own political and social ends? To make its ancestors come out more politically correct in the face of actual historical events?
> >> Again, simply go on the web and begin searching by
> putting in the words "black Confederates" in your
> search engine and simply view the results. The claim
> is there, not a few times, but again and again, often
> repeated from one site to another.
>
> I am familiar with such websites, but it is important
> to consider that somebody with a website and an
> opinion does not necessarily represent the national
> leadership views of the SCV or UDC or the majority of
> their members.
In part, I am in agreement with you on the above, that those individuals who create websites are not necessarily representing all of the SCV.
But it cannot be denied, especially after typing in the phrase "black Confederates" and searching the results of web hits, that there are a large number of SCV camps that ascribe to such numbers and the idea that slavery had "nothing" to do with the war.
Surely, the national leadership is aware of this type of information and beliefs being touted on these numerous SCV camp sites. Isn't the national leadership supposed to provide, well, leadership on such issues? Especially if they are seen as detremential to the organizations goal of honoring the Confederate soldier and his memory?
> >> I was under the impression that we were both
> arguing from our own points-of-view and that the
> evidence we both consider contains no more weight or
> authenticity simply because it comes from a Northern
> or Southern source, that we both expect to be
> convinced by actual evidence and not regional
> opinion.
>
> I had the same impression.
Good.
> "The first step in liquidating a people is to erase
> its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its
> history. Then have somebody write new books,
> manufacture a new culture, invent a new history.
> Before long the nation will begin to forget what it
> is and what it was."
> Milan Kundera
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes."
George Santayana
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,761
From:
North Carolina
Registered:
2/8/03
|
|
(122 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 14, 2009 8:03 AM
|
> > Unionblue,
> >
> > >> No, that has not been my contention at all
> and I
> > doubt if you will find a single statement by me
> that
> > says such. If these men served as soldiers,
> freely,
> > voluntarily, or even as free blacks who were
> > conscripted to serve in the Confederate army,
> and
> > died in that service, they should be honored.
> >
> > If you really mean it then I'll wait with
> baited
> > breath for the first time you actually say well
> done
> > to the honouring of a black Confederate soldier.
> Is
> > this grudging recognition, on your part,
> contingent
> > upon having died in service or is it your
> opinion, as
> > an ex military man, that no soldier should be
> so
> > honoured if he survived the war?
>
> csa-today,
>
> Thank you for your indulgence, as reserved as it may
> be, on my view that any soldier, black or
> white, Confederate or Union, should be honored for
> their service.
>
> And no, as an ex-military man, I have no objection to
> those who served their country at great risk to
> themselves and survived, should be honored. Just
> prove to me it is not a slight-of-hand show to
> dishonor actual history and that he was truly a
> soldier and not a slave who had no choice in the
> matter.
>
> > >> History has shown the primary reason the
> > Confederacy seceded from the Union was the
> > protection, preservation, and expansion of
> slavery.
> > It is a historical fact that cannot be denied
> or
> > reduced or shoved aside. The vanished
> Confederacy
> > needs no help from me to put it in a "bad light"
> even
> > if I wanted to.
> >
> > The issue of slavery (or any other poltical
> issue),
> > as a cause of war, is a legitimate argument in
> the
> > proper venue, but not as a distracting issue in
> a
> > discussion about honouring soldiers be they
> black or
> > white or whether they fought for the CSA or the
> USA.
> >
> > >> No, if that is what is really occuring, I
> have no
> > problem with it at all. I would like very much
> to see
> > actual history being learned by both blacks and
> > whites, especially about the Civil War. Until
> that
> > period of history is fully resolved, I think
> neither
> > can advance their understanding of one another.
> >
> > I'm glad to hear that, for some reason I had
> started
> > to believe that you opposed honouring black
> > Confederates lest it somehow distracted from
> the
> > discussion of slavery.
>
> The fact of the matter many served in the Union and
> Confederate armies for many different personal
> reasons. If a black slave served as a soldier in the
> Confederate army because he believed it was his duty
> to do so, to earn respect and gain favor later on, to
> improve his lot or to gain his and his family's
> freedom after the war, he deserves to be recognized.
> The fact that many men, black or white, northern or
> r southern, enlisted for various personal reasons,
> will never distract that they all fought for the
> policial and social goals of their respective
> regions, to include the South fighting for the
> institution of slavery. Recognizing soldiers for
> their voluntary sacrifice can never distract from the
> discussion of slavery, IMO.
>
> > >> You should not make claims about something I
> have
> > never said. The fact of the matter is, some of
> the
> > national leadership of the SCV and some of the
> state
> > camps ARE making claims about the numbers of
> blacks
> > who were soldiers and are using these supposed
> > "facts" to advance an agenda that is not based
> in
> > historical fact. Black men have been given
> honors
> > about their service as black Confederate
> soldiers
> > when it was shown they were not.
> >
> > If you will provide your sources that say the
> SCV
> > national leadership is claiming black
> Confederate
> > soldiers numbered anywhere near 60, 000- to
> 90,000
> > then I will take a look at it. I assume you know
> who
> > the national SCV leadership is, but in any case,
> if
> > they are claiming those numbers I will not
> hesitate
> > to say that I disagree with them. I don't doubt,
> for
> > a moment, there are people out there, both in
> and out
> > of the SCV and UDC, who have bought into the
> > exaggerated claims made by the black academics,
> but
> > unless you can show differently, it is not the
> > official position of those organisations.
>
> csa-today, so it is your considered opinion that the
> national leadership of the SCV, perhaps not all, but
> some, are actively trying to diminish the issue of
> slavery as a cause of the Civil War, and that the
> promotion of honoring black Confederates in order to
> promote this idea is not being espoused or encouraged
> by those in the national leadership?
>
> I am interested in a more informed reply, but I
> confess, my previous notes that led me to this
> personal conclusion are long gone, scattered or
> destroyed to make room for other topice I discuss.
> Let me get back to you on this and my evidence that
> t led me to such,
>
> > >> The policy of diminishing slavery and uping
> the
> > numbers of blacks who were actually soldiers and
> not
> > slaves simply being forced to serve may be
> uneven
> > amongst the SCV camps across the country, but it
> has
> > happened and no corrections or denouncements
> have
> > been made of those occurances. It gives the
> > impression that the SCV as a whole condones
> such.
> >
> > Here you go with your diminishing slavery
> diatribe
> > again, that's what is really bugging you, not
> the
> > number or status of black Confederates the SCV
> > chooses to recognise.
>
> It bugs me because it appears to me, and others, that
> this is the hidden reason for such "honoring" of
> black Confederates. Not that long ago, in terms of
> US history, the UCV, the ancestor of the present-day
> SCV, was actively DENYING blacks soldiers, slave or
> free, ever served in the Confederate army at all. My
> question remains, is the current SCV truly honoring
> black Confederate soldiers, or in its rush to present
> a version of history it finds more politically
> acceptable, using such events for its own political
> and social ends? To make its ancestors come out more
> politically correct in the face of actual historical
> events?
>
> > >> Again, simply go on the web and begin
> searching by
> > putting in the words "black Confederates" in
> your
> > search engine and simply view the results. The
> claim
> > is there, not a few times, but again and again,
> often
> > repeated from one site to another.
> >
> > I am familiar with such websites, but it is
> important
> > to consider that somebody with a website and an
> > opinion does not necessarily represent the
> national
> > leadership views of the SCV or UDC or the
> majority of
> > their members.
>
> In part, I am in agreement with you on the above,
> that those individuals who create websites are not
> necessarily representing all of the SCV.
>
> But it cannot be denied, especially after typing in
> the phrase "black Confederates" and searching the
> results of web hits, that there are a large number of
> SCV camps that ascribe to such numbers and the idea
> that slavery had "nothing" to do with the war.
>
> Surely, the national leadership is aware of this type
> of information and beliefs being touted on these
> numerous SCV camp sites. Isn't the national
> leadership supposed to provide, well, leadership on
> such issues? Especially if they are seen as
> detremential to the organizations goal of honoring
> the Confederate soldier and his memory?
>
> > >> I was under the impression that we were both
> > arguing from our own points-of-view and that
> the
> > evidence we both consider contains no more
> weight or
> > authenticity simply because it comes from a
> Northern
> > or Southern source, that we both expect to be
> > convinced by actual evidence and not regional
> > opinion.
> >
> > I had the same impression.
>
> Good.
>
> > "The first step in liquidating a people is to
> erase
> > its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its
> > history. Then have somebody write new books,
> > manufacture a new culture, invent a new
> history.
> > Before long the nation will begin to forget what
> it
> > is and what it was."
>
> > Milan Kundera
>
> "Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to
> their mistakes."
>
> George Santayana
>
> Unionblue
>
> --
> Belief does not make truth.
> Evidence makes truth.
> And belief does not make evidence.
Unionblue,
>> It bugs me because it appears to me, and others, that this is the hidden reason for such "honoring" of black Confederates. Not that long ago, in terms of US history, the UCV, the ancestor of the present-day SCV, was actively DENYING blacks soldiers, slave or free, ever served in the Confederate army at all. My question remains, is the current SCV truly honoring black Confederate soldiers, or in its rush to present a version of history it finds more politically acceptable, using such events for its own political and social ends? To make its ancestors come out more politically correct in the face of actual historical events? >>
The UCV certainly would have denied that over 10% of the Confederate army was black, but they could have hardly denied that black veterans regularly attended UCV conventions during the early 20th century. What sometimes confuses the numbers of who was what among black Confederates was that Southern States, in the early 20th century, started giving pensions to former black body servants (slaves) for faithful service during the war. I don't think anyone is claiming that none of the black Confederate were slaves, but what they are saying is the people that were enrolled on regimental rosters, whether white or some other race, were soldiers--body servants and slave cooks were not enrolled on the rosters.
There was a number black Confederate veteran admitted into Confederate Soldiers homes by the early 1920s. On page 136 of R.B. Rosenburg's Living Monuments: Confederate Soldier's Homes in the New South, he has a photograph of two former black Confederates living at the Mississippi Beauvoir Confederate home in 1936. They are: Frank Childress "an eighty five year old former dispatch carrier and Nathan Best, age 92, who returned from the war minus an arm."
Also, lets not forget the impressive monument erected to the memory of Henry Brown shortly after his death in 1907.
http://www.37thtexas.org/html/Memoriam3.html
I agree there has been an upsurge of interest in Black Confederates since the black academics brought up the subject in the 1980s and 90s and I regret their over stating the numbers, but to get back to your half veiled assertion that this is all some nefarious SCV scheme ,I'll just reply --there is nothing new about honouring the service of Black Confederates.
By the way, I received e-mail last night describing the honouring of the two Black Confederate soldiers in Columbus County, North Carolina. You would love the picture of Sandy Oliver's grandson holding a Confederate Flag. There was a good description of the event including black and white re enactors, family members and others at the church where Oliver is buried. I hope this information and pictures will turn up at some site like the SHN&Vs where I can copy the link and post it here.
"There were never such men in an army before. They will go anywhere and do anything."
Robert E. Lee
|
|
|
Posts:
2,381
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(123 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 14, 2009 8:31 AM
|
> Unionblue,
>
> >> It bugs me because it appears to me, and others,
> that this is the hidden reason for such "honoring" of
> black Confederates. Not that long ago, in terms of US
> history, the UCV, the ancestor of the present-day
> SCV, was actively DENYING blacks soldiers, slave or
> free, ever served in the Confederate army at all. My
> question remains, is the current SCV truly honoring
> black Confederate soldiers, or in its rush to present
> a version of history it finds more politically
> acceptable, using such events for its own political
> and social ends? To make its ancestors come out more
> politically correct in the face of actual historical
> events? >>
>
> The UCV certainly would have denied that over 10% of
> the Confederate army was black, but they could have
> hardly denied that black veterans regularly attended
> UCV conventions during the early 20th century.
I too, have seen the various photographs of such reunions and read the accounts of black Confederates showing up at the Gettysburg reunion. But are these loyal servants who are being honored or actual black Confederate soldiers?
To me, there is a vast difference.
And that, coupled with the denial of the UCV that blacks served as soldiers within the ranks of the Confederate army, at all, leads me to suspect there is some confusion on the message the SCV wants to get out. Again, if black Confederate soldiers are being honored for their actual service, no problem. But if such ceremonies are being held with an agenda to distort history, its not honoring the men involved, its using them.
> What sometimes confuses the numbers of who was what among
> black Confederates was that Southern States, in the
> early 20th century, started giving pensions to former
> black body servants (slaves) for faithful service
> during the war. I don't think anyone is claiming that
> none of the black Confederate were slaves, but what
> they are saying is the people that were enrolled on
> regimental rosters, whether white or some other race,
> were soldiers--body servants and slave cooks were not
> enrolled on the rosters.
Yet there seems to be some ongoing confusion about how these men (i.e. black soldier, body servants, slave, laborers, etc.) were recorded on such documents. Why is it we see the term "soldier" written down first in some of these documents, and then the word is scratched out and replaced with "servant," "cook," or other title? Was there embarassment over the idea that blacks actually served as soldiers in a post-war South that was trying to preach a "solid" South and restrict black freedom?
Again, I have no doubt, that in spite of Confederate government laws and regulations that did NOT permit the enlistment of blacks, free or otherwise, into the Confederate army, that some local regiments did so. There is too much historical documentation to deny that it never happened. My bone of contention was, is, and remains to be, why is the SCV honoring these men at this particular time or in the last 10 - 15 years? It was not an issue before, not in the sense it is today.
> There was a number black Confederate veteran admitted
> into Confederate Soldiers homes by the early 1920s.
> On page 136 of R.B. Rosenburg's Living Monuments:
> Confederate Soldier's Homes in the New South, he
> has a photograph of two former black Confederates
> living at the Mississippi Beauvoir Confederate home
> in 1936. They are: Frank Childress "an eighty five
> year old former dispatch carrier and Nathan Best, age
> 92, who returned from the war minus an arm."
Again, black Confederate soldiers, or former slaves who were faithful to their masters? Would it make a difference?
> Also, lets not forget the impressive monument erected
> to the memory of Henry Brown shortly after his death
> in 1907.
> http://www.37thtexas.org/html/Memoriam3.html
I'll check it out and get back to you when I view the 37th's website. I've viewed it before and find it very impressive that the 37th protested the KKK use of the Confederate Battle Flage, but that the SCV did not support them and asked them NOT to do so. Makes for an interesting article on their site.
> I agree there has been an upsurge of interest in
> Black Confederates since the black academics brought
> up the subject in the 1980s and 90s and I regret
> their over stating the numbers, but to get back to
> your half veiled assertion that this is all some
> nefarious SCV scheme ,I'll just reply --there is
> nothing new about honouring the service of Black
> Confederates.
You have said this often and I believe you are sincere. I just have my doubts as to the reasons why.
> By the way, I received e-mail last night describing
> the honouring of the two Black Confederate soldiers
> in Columbus County, North Carolina. You would love
> the picture of Sandy Oliver's grandson holding a
> Confederate Flag. There was a good description of the
> event including black and white re enactors, family
> members and others at the church where Oliver is
> buried. I hope this information and pictures will
> turn up at some site like the SHN&Vs where I can copy
> the link and post it here.
I have already seen the pictures of the ceremony on another site which linked to the site you describe.
If you wish, I can provide you with the URL and post it hear on this thread.
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
5,761
From:
North Carolina
Registered:
2/8/03
|
|
(124 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 14, 2009 11:23 AM
|
> > Unionblue,
> >
> > >> It bugs me because it appears to me, and
> others,
> > that this is the hidden reason for such
> "honoring" of
> > black Confederates. Not that long ago, in terms
> of US
> > history, the UCV, the ancestor of the
> present-day
> > SCV, was actively DENYING blacks soldiers, slave
> or
> > free, ever served in the Confederate army at
> all. My
> > question remains, is the current SCV truly
> honoring
> > black Confederate soldiers, or in its rush to
> present
> > a version of history it finds more politically
> > acceptable, using such events for its own
> political
> > and social ends? To make its ancestors come out
> more
> > politically correct in the face of actual
> historical
> > events? >>
> >
> > The UCV certainly would have denied that over
> 10% of
> > the Confederate army was black, but they could
> have
> > hardly denied that black veterans regularly
> attended
> > UCV conventions during the early 20th century.
>
> I too, have seen the various photographs of such
> reunions and read the accounts of black Confederates
> showing up at the Gettysburg reunion. But are these
> loyal servants who are being honored or actual black
> Confederate soldiers?
>
> To me, there is a vast difference.
>
> And that, coupled with the denial of the UCV that
> blacks served as soldiers within the ranks of the
> Confederate army, at all, leads me to suspect there
> is some confusion on the message the SCV wants to get
> out. Again, if black Confederate soldiers are being
> honored for their actual service, no problem. But if
> such ceremonies are being held with an agenda to
> distort history, its not honoring the men involved,
> its using them.
>
> > What sometimes confuses the numbers of who was
> what among
> > black Confederates was that Southern States, in
> the
> > early 20th century, started giving pensions to
> former
> > black body servants (slaves) for faithful
> service
> > during the war. I don't think anyone is claiming
> that
> > none of the black Confederate were slaves, but
> what
> > they are saying is the people that were enrolled
> on
> > regimental rosters, whether white or some other
> race,
> > were soldiers--body servants and slave cooks
> were not
> > enrolled on the rosters.
>
> Yet there seems to be some ongoing confusion about
> how these men (i.e. black soldier, body servants,
> slave, laborers, etc.) were recorded on such
> documents. Why is it we see the term "soldier"
> written down first in some of these documents, and
> then the word is scratched out and replaced with
> "servant," "cook," or other title? Was there
> embarassment over the idea that blacks actually
> served as soldiers in a post-war South that was
> trying to preach a "solid" South and restrict black
> freedom?
>
> Again, I have no doubt, that in spite of Confederate
> government laws and regulations that did NOT permit
> the enlistment of blacks, free or otherwise, into the
> Confederate army, that some local regiments did so.
> There is too much historical documentation to deny
> y that it never happened. My bone of contention was,
> is, and remains to be, why is the SCV honoring these
> men at this particular time or in the last 10 - 15
> years? It was not an issue before, not in the sense
> it is today.
>
> > There was a number black Confederate veteran
> admitted
> > into Confederate Soldiers homes by the early
> 1920s.
> > On page 136 of R.B. Rosenburg's Living
> Monuments:
> > Confederate Soldier's Homes in the New
> South, he
> > has a photograph of two former black
> Confederates
> > living at the Mississippi Beauvoir Confederate
> home
> > in 1936. They are: Frank Childress "an eighty
> five
> > year old former dispatch carrier and Nathan
> Best, age
> > 92, who returned from the war minus an arm."
>
> Again, black Confederate soldiers, or former slaves
> who were faithful to their masters? Would it make a
> difference?
>
> > Also, lets not forget the impressive monument
> erected
> > to the memory of Henry Brown shortly after his
> death
> > in 1907.
> > http://www.37thtexas.org/html/Memoriam3.html
>
> I'll check it out and get back to you when I view the
> 37th's website. I've viewed it before and find it
> very impressive that the 37th protested the KKK use
> of the Confederate Battle Flage, but that the SCV did
> not support them and asked them NOT to do so. Makes
> for an interesting article on their site.
>
> > I agree there has been an upsurge of interest
> in
> > Black Confederates since the black academics
> brought
> > up the subject in the 1980s and 90s and I
> regret
> > their over stating the numbers, but to get back
> to
> > your half veiled assertion that this is all
> some
> > nefarious SCV scheme ,I'll just reply --there
> is
> > nothing new about honouring the service of
> Black
> > Confederates.
>
> You have said this often and I believe you are
> sincere. I just have my doubts as to the reasons
> why.
>
> > By the way, I received e-mail last night
> describing
> > the honouring of the two Black Confederate
> soldiers
> > in Columbus County, North Carolina. You would
> love
> > the picture of Sandy Oliver's grandson holding
> a
> > Confederate Flag. There was a good description
> of the
> > event including black and white re enactors,
> family
> > members and others at the church where Oliver
> is
> > buried. I hope this information and pictures
> will
> > turn up at some site like the SHN&Vs where I can
> copy
> > the link and post it here.
>
> I have already seen the pictures of the ceremony on
> another site which linked to the site you describe.
>
> If you wish, I can provide you with the URL and post
> it hear on this thread.
>
> Unionblue
>
> --
> Belief does not make truth.
> Evidence makes truth.
> And belief does not make evidence.
Unionblue,
>>Again, I have no doubt, that in spite of Confederate government laws and regulations that did NOT permit the enlistment of blacks, free or otherwise, into the Confederate army, that some local regiments did so. There is too much historical documentation to deny that it never happened.
That is all that I have ever claimed. I respect the black academics for standing up for the South and for other reasons, but having said that, I will add that their exaggerated claims of black Confederates has been the cause of much misunderstanding in recent years. I think some Southern whites may actually believe the claimed numbers, but SCV members should, at least, know that if such high percentage of the Confederate army were black there would have been more notice of the fact taken during the war.
>>My bone of contention was, is, and remains to be, why is the SCV honoring these men at this particular time or in the last 10 - 15 years? It was not an issue before, not in the sense it is today.
As I have pointed out, there is nothing new about honouring black Confederates, but as to why the sudden interest in not only black Confederates but also all things Confederate as well, you can largely thank the NAACP. About twenty years ago, when the NAACP had apparently solved all the other problems confronting African-Americans, they then decided it was high time to take on what was really holding black folks down -- that "blight on the Universe" the Confederate Flag. The results, of course, were a tremendous growth in membership of groups like the SCV and renewed determination to defend our heritage against all comers.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/dec07/confed_flg.htm
>> I have already seen the pictures of the ceremony on another site which linked to the site you describe.
>> If you wish, I can provide you with the URL and post it hear on this thread.
Please do, so far I have only seen the e-mail version and I don't know how to post the pictures of the event on this board.
"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject."
Marcus Aurelius
|
|
|
Posts:
2,381
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
|
Posts:
5,761
From:
North Carolina
Registered:
2/8/03
|
|
|
Posts:
2,441
Registered:
2/13/05
|
|
(127 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 15, 2009 10:36 AM
|
Unionblue
"...the denial of the UCV that blacks served as soldiers within the ranks of the Confederate army..."
All you have posted on this thread is one statement by a certain Mr. Fall.
Why do you continue to represent this as a position statement of the entire UCV?
|
|
|
Posts:
7,869
From:
MD
Registered:
4/25/00
|
|
(128 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 15, 2009 12:32 PM
|
Why is it that the Director of the Museum of the Confederacy told me that he and his staff have reviewed most, if not all, Confederate regimental muster rolls that still exists and have never found a Black as a fully enrolled soldier, drawing rations and pay?
Black cooks, musicans etc. were not carried on the rolls and drew pay.
--
Brgds,
Pat
|
|
|
Posts:
2,381
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(129 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 15, 2009 12:59 PM
|
> Unionblue
> "...the denial of the UCV that blacks served as
> soldiers within the ranks of the Confederate
> army..."
>
> All you have posted on this thread is one statement
> by a certain Mr. Fall.
> Why do you continue to represent this as a position
> statement of the entire UCV?
StrikeForTheSouth,
Because such statements seem to be part of a larger pattern within the South in particular at that time and in the entire nation in general.
I have provided one piece of evidence that documents a UCV Commander stating in front of a meeting in the early 1900s with the UDC that NO blacks served in the Confederate army as soldiers.
Others here have provided evidence of blacks being on the census rolls, regimental rolls, and pension rolls, at first listed as "soldiers" and then have that description struck through and another, noncombantant roll listed, such as cook, driver, muscian, anything but soldier.
Now, if the South at the time had no problem with black slaves or freemen serving as soldiers in the Confederate army, why was such a description almost always stricken and replaced with a support or noncombat job?
And then we have the conduct of the Confederate government on the enlistment of blacks during the Civil War, free or slave, which by its own laws and rules does not permit the enlistment of slaves or free blacks as soldiers (i.e., armed men, with muskets, serving in the ranks of fighting men). It was simply not permitted by Confederate law and the Confederate Secretary of War turned down every offer to enlist blacks as soldiers, right up until late, LATE 1864 and early 1865.
There is also the history of Southern white soldiers and civilians at this time who did not want to arm black slaves or have them familiar with the handling of weapons and the firm belief that slaves would not make good soldiers. And then white soldiers in the ranks by a large majority, did NOT want to serve with blacks in their ranks as soldiers.
There is too much history and social custom along with the very laws at the time that restricted or denied slaves the right to bear arms or that they would make good soldiers to give me an impression that such service was widespread.
I am of the opinion that the statement of the UVC commander in his speech was a reflection of a typical attitude concerning slaves in military service with the South as soldiers.
Oh, I am of the opinion that honoring a faithful servant, cook, muscian did take place, but never with the full recognition of that of a fellow soldier, not in most cases, only rarely and not in the numbers that some claim.
Perhaps you have access to UCV notes and documents that would refute the speech that I have provided, one where a UCV member or camp commander makes a claim of black confederate soldiers at a meeting or public speech.
Not support personnel, but those who actually fought in the ranks or in separate units in combat. It would be interesting to find out if there were such reports and if they are given in any significant numbers.
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,441
Registered:
2/13/05
|
|
(130 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 15, 2009 1:53 PM
|
proh
> Why is it that the Director of the Museum of the
> Confederacy told me that he and his staff have
> reviewed most, if not all, Confederate regimental
> muster rolls that still exists and have never found a
> Black as a fully enrolled soldier, drawing rations
> and pay?
>
> Black cooks, musicans etc. were not carried on the
> rolls and drew pay.
>
> --
> Brgds,
> Pat
So what you are saying here is-
...according to the MOC there are no blacks at all on the rolls.
Not only no privates...but no cooks or musicians either.
Is that what you are saying?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,441
Registered:
2/13/05
|
|
(131 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 15, 2009 2:59 PM
|
> > Unionblue
> > "...the denial of the UCV that blacks served as
> > soldiers within the ranks of the Confederate
> > army..."
> >
> > All you have posted on this thread is one
> statement
> > by a certain Mr. Fall.
> > Why do you continue to represent this as a
> position
> > statement of the entire UCV?
>
> StrikeForTheSouth,
>
> Because such statements seem to be part of a larger
> pattern within the South in particular at that time
> and in the entire nation in general.
>
> I have provided one piece of evidence that documents
> a UCV Commander stating in front of a meeting in the
> early 1900s with the UDC that NO blacks served in the
> Confederate army as soldiers.
>
> Others here have provided evidence of blacks being on
> the census rolls, regimental rolls, and pension
> rolls, at first listed as "soldiers" and then have
> that description struck through and another,
> noncombantant roll listed, such as cook, driver,
> muscian, anything but soldier.
>
> Now, if the South at the time had no problem with
> black slaves or freemen serving as soldiers in the
> Confederate army, why was such a description almost
> always stricken and replaced with a support or
> noncombat job?
>
> And then we have the conduct of the Confederate
> government on the enlistment of blacks during the
> Civil War, free or slave, which by its own laws and
> rules does not permit the enlistment of slaves or
> free blacks as soldiers (i.e., armed men, with
> muskets, serving in the ranks of fighting men). It
> was simply not permitted by Confederate law and the
> Confederate Secretary of War turned down every offer
> to enlist blacks as soldiers, right up until late,
> LATE 1864 and early 1865.
>
> There is also the history of Southern white soldiers
> and civilians at this time who did not want to arm
> black slaves or have them familiar with the handling
> of weapons and the firm belief that slaves would not
> make good soldiers. And then white soldiers in the
> ranks by a large majority, did NOT want to serve with
> blacks in their ranks as soldiers.
>
> There is too much history and social custom along
> with the very laws at the time that restricted or
> denied slaves the right to bear arms or that they
> would make good soldiers to give me an impression
> that such service was widespread.
>
> I am of the opinion that the statement of the UVC
> commander in his speech was a reflection of a typical
> attitude concerning slaves in military service with
> the South as soldiers.
>
> Oh, I am of the opinion that honoring a faithful
> servant, cook, muscian did take place, but never with
> the full recognition of that of a fellow soldier, not
> in most cases, only rarely and not in the numbers
> that some claim.
>
> Perhaps you have access to UCV notes and documents
> that would refute the speech that I have provided,
> one where a UCV member or camp commander makes a
> claim of black confederate soldiers at a meeting or
> public speech.
>
> Not support personnel, but those who actually fought
> in the ranks or in separate units in combat. It
> would be interesting to find out if there were such
> reports and if they are given in any significant
> numbers.
>
> Unionblue
>
> --
> Belief does not make truth.
> Evidence makes truth.
> And belief does not make evidence.
It isn't necessary for me to refute what you have not established. A lone speech by a Mr. Fall -who may not have even been in the Confederate army- does not establish what you claim.
The Confederate Veteran magazine (official publication of the UCV) has several mentions of the companies organized in Richmond in 1865. That by itself refutes Mr. Fall.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,623
From:
Shenandoah Valley
Registered:
1/6/04
|
|
(132 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 15, 2009 3:27 PM
|
"FOR US OR AGAINST US?
THE correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a regiment of mounted ne**oes, 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.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/may/black-confederate-soldiers.htm
--
The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didnt have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession.-Sobran
|
|
|
Posts:
2,998
From:
somewhere near A2 MI.
Registered:
5/3/01
|
|
(133 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 15, 2009 5:53 PM
|
<Vareb wrote:
"THE correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a regiment of mounted ne**oes, 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 same correspondent later in the article alluded to those "black men" as armed slaves and also noted that rebels dug up dead Union soldiers and used the jawbones for spurs while sending other body parts back "home to friends" to be used as trinkets.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,623
From:
Shenandoah Valley
Registered:
1/6/04
|
|
(134 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 15, 2009 7:14 PM
|
> <Vareb wrote:
> "THE correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of
> its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a
> regiment of mounted ne**oes, 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 same correspondent later in the article alluded
> to those "black men" as armed slaves and also noted
> that rebels dug up dead Union soldiers and used the
> jawbones for spurs while sending other body parts
> back "home to friends" to be used as trinkets.
Icepick, here is the whole report. Point to where it says 'armed slaves'.
"THE correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a regiment of mounted ne*roes, 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. There is little doubt also, that the fortifications at Manassas and those at Yorktown were the work of the slaves. The same paper reports that "the rebels dug up the remains of our soldiers, and made spurs of their jawbones, cutting up their skeletons into every conceivable form, and sending the trinkets home to their friends."
There is plenty of authentic confirmation of these barbarities.
Will some one now say why, if slaves are to be armed at all, they should be armed against our friends instead of our enemies? And is it not clear that the "atrocities" which it was supposed the slaves, if freed, would instantly fall to committing, are already perpetrated by the rebels? There is no recorded San Domingo "horror" more horrible than this last story.
At least twenty thousand slaves have been liberated by the necessities of the war. Will any friend of the rebels, so fearful of the ungovernable passions of emancipated slaves, please to mention the master whose jawbone they have cut into spurs or whose skull they have made into a drinking-cup? "
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1862/may/black-confederate-soldiers.htm
--
The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didnt have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession.-Sobran
|
|
|
Posts:
2,381
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(135 of 147)
Re: Black Confederates honoured
Feb 16, 2009 2:21 AM
|
> > Perhaps you have access to UCV notes and
> documents
> > that would refute the speech that I have
> provided,
> > one where a UCV member or camp commander makes
> a
> > claim of black confederate soldiers at a meeting
> or
> > public speech.
> >
> > Not support personnel, but those who actually
> fought
> > in the ranks or in separate units in combat.
> It
> > would be interesting to find out if there were
> such
> > reports and if they are given in any
> significant
> > numbers.
> >
> > Unionblue
> >
> > --
> > Belief does not make truth.
> > Evidence makes truth.
> > And belief does not make evidence.
> It isn't necessary for me to refute what you have not
> established. A lone speech by a Mr. Fall -who may
> not have even been in the Confederate army- does not
> establish what you claim.
StrikeForTheSouth,
You may not feel the need to do so, but it is necessary to actually refute evidence that has been supplied to you, even if it is only one, recorded instance of that fact, by a Mr. Fall, who was in fact, a commander of an established UVC camp and who has been shown by others to have served in Confederate service.
It is also necessary to refute the actual history of record that shows clearly that the idea of black slaves, armed as soldiers and to serve in the Confederate army, met with almost universal opposition with the Confederate civilian, government (national & state), and within the Confederate army by the soldiers in the ranks. This can be clearly shown by the Confederate government's furious debate over the Ne gro Soldier Bill, the newspaper articles and editorials of the times. letters from the public, regimental newspapers and letters from the soldiers themselves.
In other words, you may not want to try and refute one piece of evidence I have supplied, and certainly that is your right, but by doing such, you refute nothing.
> The Confederate Veteran magazine (official
> publication of the UCV) has several mentions of the
> companies organized in Richmond in 1865. That by
> itself refutes Mr. Fall.
I agree that there were a couple of companies of black slaves being formed and organized at Richmond in 1865. But I do not agree that this refutes Mr. Falls observation or his attitude which he expresses loud and clear in the segment of his speech that I presented.
FIrst off, the number of black soldiers formally enlisted into service with the Confederate army in early 1865 gives lie to the claim that vast numbers of blacks, slave or free, served as "soldiers" in the Confederate army.
Second, the fact that this small group was marching around Richmond does not alter the fact of a mindset displayed by Mr. Fall in his speech, that actually dismissed the entire concept of blacks serving as soldiers in the Confederate army at any time during the war. It is his belief and his perception that formed his historical reality for his time period (1900s). This is what was publically acceptable to an audience of southerners concerned with southern heritage at that time.
Now, in the late 20th century and early 21st century, with much public opinion centering around the idea that the late Civil War was actually brought about mainly by the institution of slavery, we see another effort mounted by those charged with protecting and preserving Southern heritage begin promoting the idea that large numbers of black slaves served as soldiers in the Confederate army. The perception that is being presented with this reversal of past practice? Slaves were loyal to their region and their masters. Therefore slavery wasn't that bad. Therefore the Civil War was brought on for another, more Southern favorable, reason.
In my own personal view, the spin in the 1900s by Mr. Fall was fully accepted back in his time because it helped forward a social and political agenda, that of segragation and white control of the South. The spin, not by all SCV camps (as csa-today & others I know has presented and convinced me of), in the 21st century is for the agenda of facing a population on the whole, rightly or wrongly, who believe the war was brought about by slavery and that perception must be altered to give a more favorable, PC correct view of Southern history.
I feel that this view that I currently hold is a majority one, even with the population that now makes up the Southern States at this time.
It would be to your advantage to try and refute such observations and evidence that I present, as it may actually assist in your own viewpoint and convince others that come to this forum that yours is the correct one.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
--
Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
