Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
The trouble is, Battlaion, WHERE have you found that information,
Sources are given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
and in WHAT context have you presented it?
Unionblue
In the 'I've found too much information that points in the other direction' context.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Never seen a POW roll with an absent without leave category.
These POWs were not considered POWs, but slaves owned the CS Army until their real owners would come to claim them.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
These POWs were not considered POWs, but slaves owned the CS Army until their real owners would come to claim them.
ole
Official designation is not the point.
You inferred that they were treated in the same manner as POWs. The record indicates they were not.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
...and not to forget the thousands of servants who remained with the army to the end of the war.
Servants, not soldiers.
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
Yes, Battalion, to your credit, you do give sources.
But too often in too many cases, the bits and pieces you give from those souces do not even tell half the story.
In the 'I've found too much information that points in the other direction' context.
This has not been your practice in the past. You simply use the part of the story that gives your view the most weight and ignore large parts of the rest of the story.
Even with the sources you continue to find, you cannot deliver the "killing blow" or the "mother lode." You cannot prove tens of thousands of black slaves serving as willing soldiers for the Confederacy. You cannot get around the historical truth that the Confederate government did not permit such service, that State law and custom forbade it, that in the few times you have provided such evidence, it is an exception, and not the rule.
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
You simply use the part of the story that gives your view the most weight and ignore large parts of the rest of the story.
Even if this were true...isn't it O-K by your standards?
After all, many times you have quoted authors who do the very same thing as you describe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
You cannot prove tens of thousands of black slaves serving as willing soldiers for the Confederacy.
You are getting like johan steele.
When did I say servants were soldiers?...
But even so...many did the service of soldiers.
Why do you want to discredit their service?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
You cannot get around the historical truth that the Confederate government did not permit such service
Please show us the Confederate Law that forbade the service of blacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
that State law and custom forbade it
What state law prevented the Louisiana Native Guard from serving? Creole Guard of Mobile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
that in the few times you have provided such evidence, it is an exception, and not the rule.
Unionblue
Depends on how many exceptions are found.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
When did I say servants were soldiers?... All too often.
But even so...many did the service of soldiers.
Why do you want to discredit their service? I don't believe anyone has, we just refuse to inflate their service to make the CS look better than it was.
Please show us the Confederate Law that forbade the service of blacks. I believe either Cash or Trice did a fine job of doing just that.
What state law prevented the Louisiana Native Guard from serving? Creole Guard of Mobile? Since neither served in combat, garrison or even a support role, it is a moot point.
Depends on how many exceptions are found. You have yet to meet Union Blue's number of 13,000 or even approach my number of 1300. In fact IIRC your own number was 5000. Which begs the question of why you protest so much.
You repeatedly grasp at straws and pull things out of context to tell a different story than what is actually in the source. An amusing and telling example of what some will do to prove their point; even when they know they are trying to peddle a distortion... at best.
Truly an issue of credibility, or lack thereof
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
But even so...many did the service of soldiers.
Why do you want to discredit their service?
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
I don't believe anyone has, we just refuse to inflate their service to make the CS look better than it was.
Using the derogatory term 'Uncle Tom' is definitely an attempt to discredit.
*
Please show us the Confederate Law that forbade the service of blacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
I believe either Cash or Trice did a fine job of doing just that.
They never did.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Please show us the Confederate Law that forbade the service of blacks.
What state law prevented the Louisiana Native Guard from serving? Creole Guard of Mobile?
Oh, come on. We've been through this before, and you are just posting this silliness to make it seem like you don't already have the information to show you the flaws in your claim.
For example, you ask "What state law prevented the Louisiana Native Guard from serving?" You already KNOW the answer, because you and I have discussed it: they were dissolved by the Louisiana State Legislature passing a law in early 1862 which provided that only white males could be part of the state Militia. Yes, the governor later asked them to stand ready to be called in an emergency, and yes, a few of them may have shown up at a muster when Farragut took New Orleans, never firing a shot and being left behind when the Confederates left the city. But asking for answers you already have is a discreditable policy, mere posturing for effect.
As to the Creole Guards of Mobile, you already KNOW that their service was refused by the Confederate government, with the Secretary of War replying specifically about them. Please answer explicitly and clearly: if the Confederate government refuses to have them, why do you wish to count them as Confederate soldiers?
You KNOW, for sure, that Confederate conscription laws in 1862 and later specified white males only, and that they passed specific laws to allow blacks to serve as musicians and cooks. Please explain why they had to make those exceptions.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Oh, come on. We've been through this before, and you are just posting this silliness to make it seem like you don't already have the information to show you the flaws in your claim.
For example, you ask "What state law prevented the Louisiana Native Guard from serving?" You already KNOW the answer, because you and I have discussed it: they were dissolved by the Louisiana State Legislature passing a law in early 1862 (all units, white and black, were dissolved) which provided that only white males could be part of the state Militia.
You mis-interpret the law.
The law required white males of a certain age group to serve.
It did not prevent anyone outside those categories from volunteering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Yes, the governor later asked them to stand ready to be called in an emergency, and yes, a few of them may have shown up at a muster when Farragut took New Orleans, never firing a shot and being left behind when the Confederates left the city.
Yes, I guess that is the 'accepted' history...
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
As to the Creole Guards of Mobile, you already KNOW that their service was refused by the Confederate government,[my reply was about state laws preventing them to serve] with the Secretary of War replying specifically about them. Please answer explicitly and clearly: if the Confederate government refuses to have them, why do you wish to count them as Confederate soldiers?
I am not saying they were Confederate soldiers proper...but they were under Confederate command. Why do you want to ignore that fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You KNOW, for sure, that Confederate conscription laws in 1862 and later specified white males [ages 18-35] only
This did not prevent white males over 35 from volunteering or in many cases free blacks from volunteering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
and that they passed specific laws to allow blacks to serve as musicians and cooks. Please explain why they had to make those exceptions.
Tim
...and please show us the specificlaw that prevented blacks from serving as soldiers.
*
Army regulations are not laws.
Laws are passed by a legislative body and can only be amended or anulled by that same body.
Rules and regulations of a governmental department are set forth by the head of that department and can be changed, excluded or ignored at his whim. None of the changes, etc., have to be appoved by a legislative body.
The Confederate Army regulations were not laws and did not have the power of law.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
