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.
Yes, that would be a very difficult task...but if it is not done his findings can not be claimed as definitive.
So his findings are not definitive unless he does this -- but yours are definitive when you do NOT do this? Once again, this is the very definition of a double standard. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
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.
__________________ "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.
They were soldiers when mustered into service (May 1861).
They were members of the Louisiana State Militia from that date until February 15, 1862 -- when their regiment was disbanded under the January 23, 1862 Militia Act of the Louisiana legislature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
They were subject to Confederate command from that time on by the 62nd Article of War.
Well, no. They were not on active service and could not be unless called up by order of the Governor/his subordinates. They were not called up during that period ending February 15, 1862 to the best of my knowledge. You might say that potentially they could have been "subject to Confederate command" if they had been called up and if the Confederate government decided to exert its' authority over them -- but that never happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
They were under Confederate command when Martial Law was declared.
Again, no. When Martial Law was declared, the regiment had been disbanded for about four weeks.
Now on March 24, 1862 the Governor's office did ask them to "maintain their organization" and the commander was ordered to report his organization to the state Militia commander. I presume he did so. This still does not put them on active duty or make them more than potentially "subject to Confederate command"; otherwise they are simply individual civilians subject to Martial Law.
When the Militia is activated, the unit commander receives a specific order for it. What you need to find is an order that looks like one of these below sent to Lt. Col. Ogden, ordering him to activate the Native Guard:
=====
ORDERS No. 610.
HDQRS. LOUISIANA MILITIA, ADJT. GEN.'S OFFICE,
Opelousas, May 23, 1862.
I. Brig. Gen. John G. Pratt, commanding the Ninth Brigade, Louisiana Militia, is called into active service, dating from the 8th of May, 1862, according to section 75, militia act of 23d January. 1862.
II. The militia forces from his brigade and from the Sixth Brigade, called by him into active service, are retained in service, dating from the date when they report themselves for duty, and until further orders.
By order of Thomas O. Moore, Governor and commander-in-chief:
M. GRIVOT,
Adjutant and Inspector.
=====
ORDERS, No. 663.
HDQRS. LOUISIANA MILITIA, ADJT. GEN.'S OFFICE,
Opelousas, June 14, 1862.
I. Brig. Gen. R. C. Martin, commanding Fifth Brigade, Louisiana Militia will proceed, on receipt of this order, to put into active service the militia of parishes within the limits of his command, and organize them into companies, battalions, and regiments, as the case may be or require, and will take every necessary measure for the protection and defense of that portion of the State and make every effort to drive the enemy from the soil.
...
By order of Thomas O. Moore, Governor and commander-in-chief:
M. GRIVOT,
Adjutant and Inspector General, Louisiana.
=====
No. 665. ORDERS.
HDQRS. LOUISIANA MILITIA, ADJT. GEN.'S OFFICE,
Opelousas, June 14, 1862.
I. The militia of the parishes of Terre Bonne, Saint Mary's, and Saint Martin, of the Sixth Brigade, Louisiana Militia, are called into actual service.(*)
II. Maj. Gen. John L. Lewis, commanding Louisiana Militia, will issue orders to the colonels of said regiments direct.
By order of Thomas O. Moore, Governor and commander-in-chief:
M. GRIVOT,
Adjutant and Inspector General.
=====
ORDERS, No. 681.
HDQRS. LOUISIANA MILITIA, ADJT. GEN.'S OFFICE,
Opelousas, June 20, 1862.
I. Brig. Gen. C. N. Rowley, commanding Sixth Brigade, Louisiana
Militia, will proceed forthwith, on receipt of this order, to put into active service the militia of the parishes within the limits of his command (the parishes of Terre Bonne, Saint Martin's, and Saint Mary's excepted, they being temporarily attached to the Ninth Brigade, Louisiana Militia), and organize them into companies, battalions, or regiments, as the case may be or require, and will adopt every necessary measure for the defense of that portion of the State and make every effort to drive the enemy from the soil.
...
By order of Thomas O. Moore, Governor and commander-in-chief:
M. GRIVOT,
Adjutant and Inspector General.
=====
ORDERS, HDQRS.No. 690.
LOUISIANA MILITIA, ADJT. GEN.'S OFFICE,
Opelousas, June 25, 1862
I. Brig. Gen. R. C. Martin, commanding Fifth Brigade, Louisiana Militia, will, on receipt of this order, put into active service the militia of the parish of La Fourche under Col. L. C. Aubert, and in his absence Lieut. Col. W. D. Burton.
...
By order of Thomas O. Moore, Governor and commander-in-chief:
M. GRIVOT,
Adjutant and Inspector General.
=====
ORDERS, No. 694.
HDQRS. LOUISIANA MILITIA, ADJT. GEN.'S OFFICE
0pelousas, June 27, 1862.
I. Colonel Bisland, commanding Terre Bonne Regiment, will order out, on receipt of this order, the militia of Terre Bonne, and put it into active service.
II. Should Colonel Bisland not obey these orders Lieut. Col. William L. Shaffer will immediately comply with requisites of article No. 1 of these orders.
...
By order of Thomas O. Moore, Governor and commander-in-chief:
M. GRIVOT,
Adjutant and Inspector General.
=====
If you can find a complete archive of the Lousiana Militia orders for the year 1862, it should be there, dated a little earlier than these and bearing a lower order number if they were ever activated. But if you cannot find such an order, then they were never activated and so were never really potentially "subject to Confederate command"; then they are simply individual civilians subject to Martial Law like anyone else.
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 his findings are not definitive unless he does this -- but yours are definitive when you do NOT do this? Once again, this is the very definition of a double standard. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Tim
What double standard?
I haven't searched 100,000/200,000 records.
I question the process he uses.
__________________ 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."
Again, no. When Martial Law was declared, the regiment had been disbanded for about four weeks.
Now on March 24, 1862 the Governor's office did ask them to "maintain their organization" and the commander was ordered to report his organization to the state Militia commander. I presume he did so. This still does not put them on active duty or make them more than potentially "subject to Confederate command"; otherwise they are simply individual civilians subject to Martial Law.
When the Militia is activated, the unit commander receives a specific order for it.
Based on subsequent events I believe Orders No. 426 effectively did just that-
24 March 1862- "II. The colonel commanding will report the organization without delay to Maj. Gen. John L. Lewis, commanding State militia." (Order No. 426)
31 March 1862- "Native Guards Regiment, Special Order No. 3" issued by colonel commanding regiment.
24-25 April 1862- "occupied the post assigned to it," "given us arms at the moment of combat" (letters of former members Native Guard)
__________________ 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."
What double standard?
I haven't searched 100,000/200,000 records.
I question the process he uses.
The number of records has nothing to do with this, other than to make his task more difficult and your task easier.
His process appears to be the same as yours. If you question his process, you question your own. If you demand he verify each individual against the US Census, you must do the same. If you say he must do something you are unwilling to do yourself, you are applying a double standard: one side to make it easy for you to say you want, one side to make it easy for you to criticize those who disagree with you. Once again, this type of action damages your own credibility and I urge you to stop doing 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.
You question his process, yet we are all still unsure as to what your process is. You have tried to point out discrepancies that are very easily explained. For example, your "is it 20 or 30?" question. That statement is from an article just recent in which the author quotes an unpublished memorandum Krick wrote, in which he stated that in going through approximately 100,000 records, he had found between 20 to 30 men who were "nonwhites." Now that is a very broad term, nonwhite. Not only can it mean black, but also Hispanic, Native American, mulatto (who were seen as not fully black, but were looked down on) and octoroon (1/8 blacks). Now I do not know what Krick found, because the memoradum is unpublished and in his possession. And it is also possible that the author of the article used nonwhite to shorten the article, or also as a broad term meaning anyone found who wasn't caucasian.
Now what I quoted, where Krick said he had gone through approximately 200,000 Confederate service records and found what can be termed as black rebels, he is specific as to the race. He specifically says that at the most, he has run across 12 who might be termed black rebels. He is specifice to the race. Now I do not know exactly his method is, but I would trust it over anything else I have seen thus far.
In all that I have read on the subject, all I have found is that there were few black soldiers in the Confederate Army. All of the men, listed as "colored" on the roles I have seen have been listed with the term of cook, musician or teamster next to them. Obviously they were not give the responsibility to be soldiers. I have not run across any (in my own research) of any who would be soldiers. Now, there are thousands of records, and I have been nowhere near through all of them. But I cannot believe that a nation that was built on the cornerstone of slavery would turn right around and from the very beginning arm their slaves. It defies logic. That there were a few that made it in makes sense, because there are always cracks that people can slip through. But that there were thousands that made it in prior to March, 1865 is ludicrous. Absolute bunk. A fabrication of the Lost Cause. Totally untrue.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Based on subsequent events I believe Orders No. 426 effectively did just that-
You are incorrect in your belief. The language of order #426 does not do that. I gave you several examples of orders written by the same officer who wrote #426 that do activate various militia units and officers. All use very specific and different language than this one does. Did you read them before making your reply?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
24 March 1862- "II. The colonel commanding will report the organization without delay to Maj. Gen. John L. Lewis, commanding State militia." (Order No. 426)
In military usage, this is the equivalent of saying "Hustle over and talk to the General". With this order, the Native Guard is being allowed to particpate in the same way every other inactive Milita unit in the state does until it is called up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
31 March 1862- "Native Guards Regiment, Special Order No. 3" issued by colonel commanding regiment.
This is an order from the colonel to his men. It might say "Happy Easter". It might say something else. It is not an order from the Governor/his staff activating the unit. Your post tells us nothing else about it.
If you have the text of the order, please post it so we can see what the order is about. Do not post snippets; post the entire text.
If you do not have the text and don't know what it says, why bother to mention it at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
24-25 April 1862- "occupied the post assigned to it," "given us arms at the moment of combat" (letters of former members Native Guard)
First, your record is such that no one can rely on your post when you do not present complete blocks of text. Here you aren't even presenting complete sentences. They look like the kind of blurbs you see in movie ads, which usually don't mean what they seem to mean. Please post the complete text if you have it -- and if you don't have it, how do you know what the letters mean or refer to?
Second, "letters of former members Native Guard" are far from the best evidence of what Governor Moore/his subordinates ordered. These could easily be fabrications, guesses, rumors, bad memories, etc. -- and the blurbs you are putting out make it impossible to even guess if they relate to what you are trying to claim.
If you have the text, please post them. If you don't, why bother to claim these snippets prove anything at all?
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.
You are incorrect in your belief. The language of order #426 does not do that. I gave you several examples of orders written by the same officer who wrote #426 that do activate various militia units and officers. All use very specific and different language than this one does. Did you read them before making your reply?
In military usage, this is the equivalent of saying "Hustle over and talk to the General". With this order, the Native Guard is being allowed to particpate in the same way every other inactive Milita unit in the state does until it is called up.
Tim
I consider it placing them on active status... ...but whatever the case... ...an order from Grivot was not necessary.
Lovell and the PMs superceded that authority-
GENERAL ORDERS, No. 11 HDQRS. DEPARTMENT No. 1, C. S. A., New Orleans, La., March 18, 1862.
"...All orders issued by provost-marshals in the execution of their offices will be promptly obeyed, and any disobedience of summons emanating from any of them will be dealt with summarily, and all officers in command of troops are hereby directed to comply promptly with any requisitions made on them by the provost-marshals, and to furnish them such aid and assistance as they may require..."
__________________ 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 were the Native Guard not treated as soldiers? At any time in their CS service.
You just said so above. Really, I thought I was helping you out; find where they served in a campaign and you will have your answer. But they didn't participate in any campaigns under a CS flag did they?
~
As I said you brought up the issue. And as I stated you are incorrect.
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. What duty was required of them; what orders did they receive? PLease be specific.
There were many units (North, South, black, white) that never saw a battle. Very true, but they were mustered in, paid, equipped and armed they were considered soldiers, if not...
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). They were not mustered in, they were not paid, equipped or armed. They were not asked or ordered to retreat w/ any other CS unit. And as far as I can tell no member of the 1st LA Native Guard ever served w/ the CS Army after they were disbanded. It appears quite clear the CS wanted nothing to do w/ black men in uniform.
Show us this official "order of battle" for New Orleans for ~April 1862. That would be your responsibility as you are the one asserting that the 1st LA Native Guard served in CS service. They exist on no Order of Battle I have ever seen, provide one w/ them on it... preferably one not written up by you.
Please provide evidence they were treated as "enthusiastic boyscouts." Show me the evidence they were treated as anything else.
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. Of coarse you were; the modern Lost Cause has had a burr under its saddle for quite a while about me (I suppose I should be honored at the attention)... I don't back down especially when I watch the distortions of history so eagerly propogated. I have watched people spend great effort and time in their putting down the US soldier from the CW on to the present day... you find yourself in noble company. Pardon me if I see no difference between spitting on a soldier long dead and one living...
I agree w/ the pride in the southern fighting man; he deserves nothing less. I don't agree w/ your history distorting agenda; never have and doubt greatly that I ever will. I'm alright looking at myself in the mirror. I speak what I see and call a spade a spade.
As to the PM warnings you received... well I received the hate mail from them and did what was right and burned it.
You've been asked questions over & over again. You refuse to answer them because you cannot. Admit it and move on.
__________________ 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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
