Bulletins & Mail CallThis topic is for information about the message board and web site. It includes: What's New, The Parade Field (FAQ), and the Member Testimonials sub-topics.
Here's one more reason to use and cite your sources.
I was killing time at work today an came across the Civil War Memory blog. It is a good blog, as blogs go, I guess.
Well, I found my self at a post from June 8, 2006, titled "Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough"", in which he (Kevin Levin) addresses the 'Blacks fighting for the Confederacy' debate. A few excerpts:
"This debate, specifically points to the wide gulf between the goals of those interested in preserving a certain vision of the war and those who apply a more critical methodology to the evidence that is typically used to prove the willing participation of Southern blacks in various Confederate armies. Aspects of this debate remind me of the debates surrounding U.F.O.'s and Alien Abduction. It is much more interesting to analyze the messenger than the evidence provided, including his/her geographic, and economic/social background. Those who believe in the veracity of these stories tend to collect individual accounts regardless of the origin of the stories, the accumulation of which is supposed to be considered a sufficient condition for drawing a specific conclusion. So it is in the debate over Black-Confederates."
"What I like about the structure of Levine's article is his decision not to take on Neo-Confederate claims of Black Confederates directly. And the reason is because it is unproductive to do so. Consider the standard approach to this debate. Individual stories are cited as evidence of a certain conclusion, but there is almost always no critical discussion of the origin of the source or whether the account really implies only one conclusion. For an example, check out the discussion on this topic over at Civil War Talk Forum. (This is a great example of why I usually steer clear of on-line discussion groups.)"
"Civil war Talk Forum"!!! Was he talking about us/me?
Well, apparently so, as his link takes you to one of our threads. I was particularly chagrined as one of the first half dozen posts is a rather thoughtless one by Samgrant, fortunately immediately followed by one from Unionblue politely asking me for "Evidence".
For a link to that "Enough is Enough" post use this link:
This should be a board in which overall thoughfulness of both established theory and new "facts" are considered.
Very few ACW studies would or could meet any of the currently used research methods as most of our "evidence" is antidotal and much of it after the fact as well. What historians usually look for is a plethora of evidence.
There are however, historical theories based on little or no evidence - circumstancial evidence at best - and they make the Discovery channel!
Citing a source should serve a purpose - for me, it means an opportunity to look up a different POV or new concept but I don't think it's always necessary to support evidence on this board.
Totally agree with you on this. Even though we may go round and round on such a topic, we get the chance to see new evidence, discuss sources and then we leave it up on the board for all to see and decide for themselves.
And it's fun too!
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I was always amused that there were "thousands of slaves fighting for the Confederacy."
One need only look at the OR's and the Confederate Constitution to see the inappropriateness of those statements.
Slaves were inferior and not the equal of the fighting soldier, in the Confederacy realm. It wasn't until the Confederacy was lost that some started thinking of using slaves as soldiers, as one last desperate option.
How can one basically fight to save slavery, as indicated in the Confederate Constitution of the United States, and lead some to the conclusion that the Confederacy started the war without enough white soldiers. It's like admitting that the Confederacy could not win the war without the use of slaves as soldier. That does not have a clear ring of logic to it. Not by Confederacy standards.
I was always amused that there were "thousands of slaves fighting for the Confederacy."
One need only look at the OR's and the Confederate Constitution to see the inappropriateness of those statements.
Slaves were inferior and not the equal of the fighting soldier, in the Confederacy realm. It wasn't until the Confederacy was lost that some started thinking of using slaves as soldiers, as one last desperate option.
How can one basically fight to save slavery, as indicated in the Confederate Constitution of the United States, and lead some to the conclusion that the Confederacy started the war without enough white soldiers. It's like admitting that the Confederacy could not win the war without the use of slaves as soldier. That does not have a clear ring of logic to it. Not by Confederacy standards.
...as to who is or is not a Black Confederate the SCV and UDC should make that determination.
The reason the UDC or the SCV should not have the final say in who was a black confederate or is simple.
Because the fox should not be in charge of the henhouse.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Don't you think those Yankees who were fired on by those 'tens of thousands' of black Confederates ought to have any input into the notion of black Confederate soldiers?
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Last edited by unionblue : 03-26-2007 at 10:37 PM.
"...as to who is or is not a Black Confederate the SCV and UDC should make that determination."
None of us has the right to subvert historical fact. One usually does so by ignoring what was written and done in that time, when none of us were alive.
*******************************
CITY POINT, VA., March 9, 1865.
(Received 8.45 p.m.)
Honorable E. M. STANTON,
Secretary of War:
The following is from to-day's Richmond Dispatch. No other news in the papers:
THE NEGRO SOLDIER BILL.
House bill to increase the military force of the Confederate States by putting negroes into the army was passed by the Senate yesterday by a majority of one, with an amendment providing that not more than 25 per cent. of the male slaves, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, in any State shall be called for.
U. S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General.
***********
This dispatch was written by General Grant, only a month before Lee's surrender at Appomattox. By this time it was too late. And even in such desperate times, the Confederate Senate only approved the measure by one vote. By March, 1865, the Confederacy was down to three states, Alabama, North Carolina and Virginia.
GENERAL ORDERS, WAR DEPT., ADJT. AND INSP. GENERAL’S OFFICE,
No. 60. Richmond, August 21, 1861.
I. Whereas, Major-General Hunter, recently in command of the enemy’s forces on the coast of South Carolina, and Brigadier-General Phelps, a military com-
mander of the enemy in the State of Louisiana, have organized and armed negro slaves for military service against their masters, citizens of this Confederacy;
and whereas, the Government of the United States has refused to answer an inquiry whether said conduct of its officers meets its sanction, and has thus left to this Government no other means of repressing said crimes and outrages than the adoption of such measures of retaliation as shall serve to prevent their repetition:
Ordered, That Major-General Hunter and Brigadier-General Phelps be no longer held and treated as public enemies of the Confederate States, but as outlaws, and that in the event of the capture of either of them, or that of any other com-missioned officer employed in drilling, organizing, or instructing slaves with a view to their armed service in this war, he shall not be regarded as a prisoner of war, but held in close confinement for execution as a felon, at such time and
place as the President shall order.
By order:
S. COOPER,
Adjutant and Inspector General.
p712 Title: The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. / Series 3 - Volume 5
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
What goes around comes around 
Linear Mode
