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.
Muster rolls may or may not have information about race (I have already listed some in this thread).
If Krick assumes that a person is white because "colored" etc, is not listed with the name...
...then that's exactly what it is- an assumption.
Well, actually, the "assumption" seems to be that Krick should be doing a job you yourself don't seem to want to do. That kind of attitude is a double-standard, and your refusal to apply the same think to your work means we can dismiss your attempt to apply it to Krick's.
However, US Census data is confidential as far as individuals are concerned. You could not, for instance, go to the Census Bureau and get the data your neighbors supplied in 2000 by name. I doubt very much that it can be done for historic Census data from 1860 either; it might very well be illegal for the government to give out the information you are demanding Krick cross-reference, and thus an impossible task. Do you, or anyone else, happen to know for sure? If it is impossible, then there really is no value to your question/demand that Krick do it, is there?
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.
Well, actually, the "assumption" seems to be that Krick should be doing a job you yourself don't seem to want to do. That kind of attitude is a double-standard, and your refusal to apply the same think to your work means we can dismiss your attempt to apply it to Krick's.
I haven't researched 200,000 records...yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
However, US Census data is confidential as far as individuals are concerned. You could not, for instance, go to the Census Bureau and get the data your neighbors supplied in 2000 by name. I doubt very much that it can be done for historic Census data from 1860 either; it might very well be illegal for the government to give out the information you are demanding Krick cross-reference, and thus an impossible task. Do you, or anyone else, happen to know for sure? If it is impossible, then there really is no value to your question/demand that Krick do it, is there?
Tim
1860 Census is available at libraries and several sites on the internet.
You did not know this?
__________________ 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."
Just for background information for those reading this, according to the US Census in 1860 there were a bit over 20,000 free black men in the South (IIRR, just over 22,000).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
What age groups?
What are the totals state by state?
The age group, IIRR, was the standard military age manpower group of the Confederacy in 1861.
I took a quick look at the US Census data and for the 11 states that formed the Confederacy the totals for "Free Colored Males" in the age groups from 15-49 total 28,155 in the 1860 Census. Since that's a wider range than the standard military age group, you'd have to chop a few years off the beginning and end, which would put you right around the 22,000 number I remembered above.
ALABAMA 506
ARKANSAS 29
FLORIDA 174
GEORGIA 738
LOUISIANA 4,049
MISSISSIPPI 161
NORTH CAROLINA 6,540
SOUTH CAROLINA 1,917
TENNESSEE 1,489
TEXAS 77
VIRGINIA 12,475
==========================
Confederacy 28,155
Now, how about supplying answers to some of the many direct questions you have never replied to?
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.
1860 Census is available at libraries and several sites on the internet.
You did not know this?
You want Krick to have cross-referenced the data individual by individual. As I say above, it would be illegal to do that today because of privacy concerns, I believe, and suspect the same held true in the past. Do you have a source where US Census data is presented by individual name, as you are implying here?
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.
So? You can't do it for the paltry few you have done, but figure you'll do it when you hit 200,000, maybe? Be serious.
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.
First we need to find out if JS wants to use this as a reason for exclusion.
This is what he indicated in previous posts.
He brought it up...not I.
Ummm hate to tell you this Battalion but that is not what I said. If there is no evidence they served in bttle or active campaign or as a garrison... lets just say their status as soldiers in the CS can be easily questioned. The USCT men were mustered in, paid, armed, equipped and treated as soldiers. Many served on after the war in the various peacetime USCT regiments giving outstanding service. As to those listed as not seeing battle... well lets see I was never shot at in my military career does that mean my service was somehow less? Of coarse not only an idiot would say so. I was sworn in, paid, armed & equipped by the govt I served. The same cannot be said of the 1st LA Native Guard. Would you put the 1st LA Native guard on the same footing as say the 3rd SC Heavy Arty, 21st VA or 8th TX? Of coarse not as those units were mustered in, paid, clothed, equipped and armed. They show up on period orders of battle for Brigades and Armies in the CS; the 1st LA Native Guard does not.
So as you have been asked to do, please provide the info I have requested on the 1st LA Native Guard. Your incessent dodging only serves to lessen your credibility. You have yet to show the 1st LA Native Guard CS was treated as anything more than a group of enthusiastic boyscouts by the CS or state govt.
Soldiers who are never paid, armed, clothed, equipped or mustered in by the govt they would like to serve are not what I would class as soldiers and by the Geneva convention they would not be considered such. At best they would be considered partisans if they took up arms against the US which there is no evidence to show that they ever did. There is not even any evidence that they provided rear echelon services.
I find it curious that your own number of 2-5000 black confederates under arms is only about twice my estimate and less than half of Neils... yet you so adamanetly attack any who question your sources or intentions. What are you doing vetting a book w/ a bunch of amatuer historians. Don't worry though, I promise not to give you any reviews on Amazon.
Vitriol gets replied to in kind, especially when it is nonstop over a long time... whats that old saying: you reap what you sow.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
...Vitriol gets replied to in kind, especially when it is nonstop over a long time... whats that old saying: you reap what you sow.
I live near New York City. That saying has been boiled down to "What comes around, goes around" in some places here, but the meaning is the same, and I would say it applies strongly to Battalion's approach: he gets back what he gives out.
Regards,
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.
Ummm hate to tell you this Battalion but that is not what I said. If there is no evidence they served in bttle or active campaign or as a garrison... lets just say their status as soldiers in the CS can be easily questioned [here you contradict yourself] The USCT men were mustered in, paid, armed, equipped and treated as soldiers.
When were the Native Guard not treated as soldiers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
As to those listed as not seeing battle... well lets see I was never shot at in my military career does that mean my service was somehow less?
You just said so above.
~
As I said you brought up the issue.
If this is what you believe then why would it matter whether the NG were in battle or not? One way or the other they did the duty which was required of them.
There were many units (North, South, black, white) that never saw a battle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
I was sworn in, paid, armed & equipped by the govt I served.
The NG were sworn in, armed & equippped by the govt they served. I haven't found any record of pay...but I haven't found pay records for any troops (black or white).
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
The same cannot be said of the 1st LA Native Guard. Would you put the 1st LA Native guard on the same footing as say the 3rd SC Heavy Arty, 21st VA or 8th TX? Of coarse not as those units were mustered in, paid, clothed, equipped and armed. They show up on period orders of battle for Brigades and Armies in the CS; the 1st LA Native Guard does not.
Show us this official "order of battle" for New Orleans for ~April 1862.
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
So as you have been asked to do, please provide the info I have requested on the 1st LA Native Guard. Your incessent dodging only serves to lessen your credibility. You have yet to show the 1st LA Native Guard CS was treated as anything more than a group of enthusiastic boyscouts by the CS or state govt.
Please provide evidence they were treated as "enthusiastic boyscouts."
Quote:
Originally Posted by js
Vitriol gets replied to in kind, especially when it is nonstop over a long time... whats that old saying: you reap what you sow.
You are well known for this attitude. I was told this when I started posting here...so be sure to look in the mirror when making those accusations.
I just return what you dish out.
__________________ 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."
"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."
You sound like a broken record, so now its my turn.
Martial Law does not make them soldiers.
They were soldiers when mustered into service (May 1861).
They were subject to Confederate command from that time on by the 62nd Article of War.
They were under Confederate command when Martial Law was declared.
__________________ 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
