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.
Cash has not been around for a while. We can only hope he is touring the Aegean or on a project from which he cannot be diverted. We can only assume that the photo was shopped to fit someone's idea that proof of black Confederates had to be provided.
Here is a place where you need to go back through the archives. There is a photo with which you may be familiar. It is labelled the First Louisiana Native Guards. However, there is another picture predating that which is of a USCT unit taken in late 1864. It was modified and turned into a recruiting poster. Sometime, after the war, the picture was cropped and the background changed and captioned, "First Louisiana Native Guards." It was presented as "proof that blacks were enlisted in Confederate service." Unfortunately, the original surfaced and the steps were traced. What might have been an attempt at proof that there were black Confederates became a sham to sell photos to the gullible.
First clue. First Louisiana. These guys were dressed in great coats. Perhaps you can come up with a reason why a Louisiana State Militia would be dressed in greatcoats. Second clue. Sky blue shows up as what color in a black & white photo? Exactly. How many Confederates actually saw a gray greatcoat, let alone had access to one? And here's about two dozen black men in greatcoats. If the photo wasn't passed off as proof of sorts, someone went to great expense to put up a scam to get someone's money.
I can only assume that someone thought that showing blacks in grey greatcoats would somehow prove that there were black Confederate soldiers. But they cropped out the officer whose uniform was black in the original. The unit was photographed in the winter of 1864. In Pennsylvania. Where greatcoats make a great deal more sense than they do in N'awleans.
Do explore the files for that series and photos of the deception.
ole
ole
Having lived in New Orleans, I can't imagine wearing an overcoat there.
I guess what I mean - why would neo-Confederates want to prove African-Americans were in the Confederacy. ...or maybe I don't understand what the term means. It conjures up neo-Nazi to me. I would think they wouldn't want to accept such a reality. If I'm wrong please forgive me.
__________________ Don
******************* "We Can, We Will" Website:http://www.myspace.com/dhpatrick Member of: American Legion, VFW, SCV Served with: 1st Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * 4th Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * V US Corps Ancestors with:
2d Miss Inf Regt * 2d Miss Inf State Regt * 26th Miss Inf Regt
32d Miss Inf Regt * 50th Ala Inf Regt * 58th Ala Inf Regt
8th Ga Inf Regt * 40th Ga Inf Regt * 4th Ark Inf Regt
3d Regt Arizona Bde (Tx State)
Having lived in New Orleans, I can't imagine wearing an overcoat there.
I guess what I mean - why would neo-Confederates want to prove African-Americans were in the Confederacy. ...or maybe I don't understand what the term means. It conjures up neo-Nazi to me. I would think they wouldn't want to accept such a reality. If I'm wrong please forgive me.
DHPatrick,
If I may, I would like to offer my own view on the question you ask above.
The idea is to get as many blacks, slaves, freedmen, etc., into Confederate uniform to downplay the part slavery had in the war.
Anything and everything must be applied to getting that topic out-of-site, out-of-mind, so that the myth that the war was not brought on by the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery does not come up in any discussion concerning the Civil War.
The cause of the war can be about tariffs, State's Rights, the interferring Federal Government, it can be about Big Business wanting to control Southern wealth, it can be about UFOs controling Abraham Lincoln, but it can NOT be about slavery.
This is why you see the myth that tens of thousands of Black slaves fought to keep themselves in bondage, that they loved being slaves so much and serving their masters with dawn to dusk work in the fields, never being allowed to have a marriage recognized by anyone and live in constant fear that their children or wife or parents or husbands could be sold at any moment.
We are often regaled with the continuing, ongoing fantasy that anywhere from 30,000 to 90,000 slaves and freedmen from the South fought in Confederate service, even though the Confederate government rejected the very idea, even though most Southern States of the Confederacy would not permit the arming or enlistment of slaves or blacks, free or otherwise, and that we have Confederate government and State government documents that support this, the myth marches on.
It began in 1866 and it continues right up to the present day with twisted statements, faked photographs and false statements made by famous Civil War historians, such as Ed Beears. The SCV reinforces this myth by "honoring faithful blacks" who "served" with the Confederacy and constantly calls them "Black Confederates" with little or no research into what role the black man they are honoring fulfilled while with Confederate forces.
Again, in an effort to preserve their "heritage" in the best possible light according to a modern-day political agenda, slaves must be enlisted into Confederate service as quickly in as a large a number as can be manufactured in order to get the idea that slavery had "something" to do with the Civil War off the historical screen as quickly as possible.
It falls flat on its face when confronted with historical fact, documentation, and a dash of common sense.
IMO.
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
Again, in an effort to preserve their "heritage" in the best possible light according to a modern-day political agenda, slaves must be enlisted into Confederate service as quickly in as a large a number as can be manufactured in order to get the idea that slavery had "something" to do with the Civil War off the historical screen as quickly as possible.
It falls flat on its face when confronted with historical fact, documentation, and a dash of common sense.
IMO.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Unionblue
I suspect I'm are getting off subject, but at the risk.
If a neo-Confederate has a consicious, I'd have to agree with you. ...but unless I mis-interpret the meaning of neo-Confederate, I would find it hard to believe they have same - given a slavery mentality. Again, I'm only working with my understanding of the matter.
__________________ Don
******************* "We Can, We Will" Website:http://www.myspace.com/dhpatrick Member of: American Legion, VFW, SCV Served with: 1st Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * 4th Sqdn, 9th US Cav Regt * V US Corps Ancestors with:
2d Miss Inf Regt * 2d Miss Inf State Regt * 26th Miss Inf Regt
32d Miss Inf Regt * 50th Ala Inf Regt * 58th Ala Inf Regt
8th Ga Inf Regt * 40th Ga Inf Regt * 4th Ark Inf Regt
3d Regt Arizona Bde (Tx State)
I suspect I'm are getting off subject, but at the risk.
If a neo-Confederate has a consicious, I'd have to agree with you. ...but unless I mis-interpret the meaning of neo-Confederate, I would find it hard to believe they have same - given a slavery mentality. Again, I'm only working with my understanding of the matter.
DHPatrick,
And your definition of a neo-Confederate is?
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
If I may, I would like to offer my own view on the question you ask above.
The idea is to get as many blacks, slaves, freedmen, etc., into Confederate uniform to downplay the part slavery had in the war.
There were slaves and slave issues but it had very little to do with the motivations for war. For the war to be about slavery requires the North to actually care about the slave. They didn't. Period. The North propped it up as a 'cause' to justify their onslaught of the South.
Quote:
Anything and everything must be applied to getting that topic out-of-site, out-of-mind,
Really haven't seen this at all. What Southerner has tried to hide or ignore the subject?
You have started several threads on slave issues. Have Southerners ignored these threads?
Quote:
so that the myth that the war was not brought on by the South's desire to preserve the institution of slavery does not come up in any discussion concerning the Civil War.
...because it wasn't. The secession of some of the Southern states had to do with issues involving slavery...but not preserving it.
The cause of the war can be about tariffs, State's Rights, the interferring Federal Government, it can be about Big Business wanting to control Southern wealth, it can be about UFOs controling Abraham Lincoln, but it can NOT be about slavery.
No, it's not about UFOs...but it's sure nuff about the Northern pocketbook.
Quote:
This is why you see the myth that tens of thousands of Black slaves fought to keep themselves in bondage, that they loved being slaves so much and serving their masters with dawn to dusk work in the fields, never being allowed to have a marriage recognized by anyone and live in constant fear that their children or wife or parents or husbands could be sold at any moment.
This view is straight out of the Northern propaganda journals of the 1860s.
War-time propaganda is not history.
__________________ 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."
Battalion, I think this is a bit of sophistry. To say that because the North did not care about ending lavery at the start of the war, therefore the war was not about slavery, put the issue exactly backwards. The South seceded over slavery. That is clear from the historical record, from the comments of the people at the time and from the secession ordinances. It comes back to: absent slavery, there would have been no secession; without secession there would have been no war.
Granted, the North did not go to war to abolish slavery. The North went to war to preserve the Union and to restore constitutional government throughout the United States. But the North only needed to go to war because (a) the Confederates government attacked United States interests throughout the South and (b) the Confederate government was formed in order to insure the preservation of slavery throughout the Confederacy and anywhere the Confederacy could extend its influence.
If a burglar breaks into my home in order to rob me to get money for drugs, and I shoot and kill him, you cannot claim that the altercation was not about drugs because it was not my intention to get the burglar off drugs, but to defend my home. Absent drugs, the altercation would not have started. Therefore, the altercation is, at its root, about drugs. By the same reasoning, the Confederacy seceded over the issue of slavery in that, absent slavery, it would not have seceded. Ergo, the war is, at its root, about slavery.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
I guess what I mean - why would neo-Confederates want to prove African-Americans were in the Confederacy.
First, DH, the label offends many of our Confederate defenders, as does Lost Causer. Just thought you'd rather be informed.
The way I see it is that showing that blacks served in the Confederate army also shows that blacks recognized that they were better off in slavery than out -- and they were willing to fight to preserve their status. Loyal patriots defending their homes and families
To do this, it is necessary to show a large number in voluntary service to the cause. You've likely seen the claim: "as many as 100,000." Personally, I believe some did slip through the regulations, pick up a musket, and fight the polluters of their soil. But that isn't enough. I must also count the cooks, teamsters, musicians, body servants and the thousands borrowed temporarily from their masters to work on fortifications.
So then the contention devolves into "service." And how many were volunteer freedmen. And it goes on and on. Unfortunately, Confederate record-keeping was, at best, spotty. And with all the pillaging, looting, and burning going on, many were destroyed. So proving anything has been difficult. But it remains important to prove that the slaves and freedmen so loved their institution that they fought to preserve it.
A close cousin is the more recent flurry of black slave owners. I have no idea what the motivation is behind that argument. "Blacks owned slaves, too, so the practice must not have been bad"?
It comes down to "your guess is as good as mine." Every CW discussion group entertains exactly the same arguments -- visit any board and there will be threads on black confederates. I don't guess there will ever be a concensus. But we're here to discuss and explore, so it can't be avoided.
But yours was a good question and a welcome relief from the charges and counter charges. Thanks.
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
If a burglar breaks into my home in order to rob me to get money for drugs, and I shoot and kill him, you cannot claim that the altercation was not about drugs because it was not my intention to get the burglar off drugs, but to defend my home. Absent drugs, the altercation would not have started. Therefore, the altercation is, at its root, about drugs. By the same reasoning, the Confederacy seceded over the issue of slavery in that, absent slavery, it would not have seceded. Ergo, the war is, at its root, about slavery.
An excellent exercise in logic, Timewalker. (You really shot him because you wanted to subjugate him and loot his resources, though, didn't you?)
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
There were slaves and slave issues but it had very little to do with the motivations for war. For the war to be about slavery requires the North to actually care about the slave. They didn't. Period. The North propped it up as a 'cause' to justify their onslaught of the South.
Lots of people here have pointed out to you repeatedly that the North went to war because they were attacked by the South. But tell us why, in your opinion, the South seceded and went to war. Why did they secede? Why did they decide they had to bring war about to get their way? The Southerners of 1860 said secession was about slavery -- you deny it. I trust what they said more than anything you make up to muddy the waters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Really haven't seen this at all. What Southerner has tried to hide or ignore the subject?
You have started several threads on slave issues. Have Southerners ignored these threads?
Just take a look in the mirror, battalion. You spend most of your time here trying to deny slavery caused the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
...because it wasn't. The secession of some of the Southern states had to do with issues involving slavery...but not preserving it.
??????? You seem to be saying the South was eager to get rid of slavery, and the North wanted to preserve it. No sensible person will believe that -- yet you are claiming it.
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.
Just take a look in the mirror, battalion. You spend most of your time here trying to deny slavery caused the war.
Tim
Of course I deny it caused the war...there's no try about it.
__________________ 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
