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.
What gripes my cookie is the idea that because there was such a thing, not in any significant numbers, that this somehow puts the insitution of slavery in a different, softer, less harmful light.
Strawman...
I don't believe anyone on this thread has stated an opinion about slavery or even brought up the subject...except you.
__________________ 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."
No one should begrudge the SCV or anyone else for that matter to honor or remember Confederate soldiers, black or white.
What gripes my cookie is the idea that because there was such a thing, not in any significant numbers, that this somehow puts the insitution of slavery in a different, softer, less harmful light.
While you and I many differ on the significance of some of the reasons some soldiers had to join the cause of secession, nothing will disfuse or detract from the primary cause of the South leaving the Union, the protection of the institution.
The idea that some would hold up these infrequent instances of black slaves or freedmen serving with Confederate forces as somehow diminishing this reason for secession is not only laughable, but completely disrespectful of historical fact and diminishes the suffering of four million souls held in bondage.
There ain't no nice way to say it, Larry, that some are not honoring or remembering these men, they are using them to promote a distortion of history and to advance a modern-day agenda. That does no honor to the men who actually served, even those of color.
And the reason large numbers cannot be uncovered through the sources I have mentioned above is that they do not exist in large numbers or they would have been produced long ago. Period.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
As usual, there's significant truth in your discourse, though you seem to still be fighting the war in some small areas.
Your cookie seems to have been misplaced. The fact that a relatively few black men fought for the south and north, as you suggest, is a simple fact. The part that seems cloudy to me is the relative signifigance of that fact. I don't much believe the impact of this notion on slavery, one way or the other, was very great.
Anyone who would defend slavery as more or less than it was, is a fool. What it was not, is the total reason that many of the soldiers on both sides entered the war. Hopefully I don't have an agenda, others may see it differently.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Last edited by larry_cockerham; 07-06-2007 at 08:17 AM.
I don't believe anyone on this thread has stated an opinion about slavery or even brought up the subject...except you.
Hardly... you've implied & insinuated blacks were better off under slavery almost from day one on this site. From the constant efforts to belittle the USCT and attacks against the US armies use of the USCT. Then there was the gleeful pointing out of the death rate in contraband camps and the laughable aborted attempt to prove the CS Navy did more to inhibit the slave trade than the US Navy. Your position is & has been quite clear for some time. W/ a plethera of distortions and out of context quotes, such as on your sig, your position on the side the black man being better off under slavery is crystal clear.
You continue to dodge questions you know the answer to. If you are afaid of the answers I'll graciously offer to pony up & answer them for you.
Neils Questions:
Please name any major battle that large numbers of Confederate black slaves participated in as soldiers, armed as such, led by Confederate officers. If 40 can be construed as a major number the only place where black men took up arms for the CS would be the bloodbath at Chickamauga, and those were servents who were tired of being shot at. To my knowledge they did not fight again.
Please name or produce any OR that shows large numbers of Confederate black slaves/freedmen that fought against Union forces as soldiers. Such references don't exist because it didn't happen.
Please produce any letters, diaries, Confederate military or government reports, that show the participation of large numbers of black slaves/freedmen who fought in any battle of note. Again, they don't exist because it never happened.
Please produce any Union letters, diaries, military of government reports that show large numbers of Confederate black slaves/freedmen in battle against Union forces. Those that do exist, three I can think of, have been discredited so badly as to question their legitimacy... I'd not put the Lost Cause past a touch of forgery. They've done it & been caught before.
The rock is still lying at your feet. Gathering moss as some appeared too worried about what they will have to acknowledge if they pick it up.
.001% of the CS forces being black men who served as soldiers seems reasonable to me; exactly twice the number of women thought to have disguised themselves to serve... Quite telling, and a story worth telling... w/out the inflation to 65,000 some claim.
A very small number; say 1900 out of 4 million were willing to fight for a nation that was founded upon a guarantee that their brethern would remain in servitude. Then approx180,000 who were willing to fight for the HOPE that slavery would be abolished forever fought for the US. No amount of creative editing, out of context quotes or outright invented sources can change that fact. Black men knew what side of the musket they needed to be on to attain any kind of freedom.
Now I will add my own question for you to dodge; if there were so many Black Confederates serving under arms why did Cleburne not just order up a batch for his own use instead of writing that letter that ended any hopes for his promotion?
__________________ 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
As usual, there's significant truth in your discourse, though you seem to still be fighting the war in some small areas.
Your cookie seems to have been misplaced. The fact that a relatively few black men fought for the south and north, as you suggest, is a simple fact. The part that seems cloudy to me is the relative signifigance of that fact. I don't much believe the impact of this notion on slavery, one way or the other, was very great. I think I would disagree w/ you here Larry, by 64 I think about 1 in 6 Union soldiers in the field was a black man. Of those more than 80% were former slaves. They knew what they were fighting for and against; and IMO the men out west certainly had come to understand that slavery was the root cause of the war and it had to be destroyed or it would come up again.
Anyone who would defend slavery as more or less than it was, is a fool. What it was not, is the total reason that many of the soldiers on both sides entered the war. Hopefully I don't have an agenda, others may see it differently. The only agenda I have ever seen you push is a search for truth in history. I agree that few soldiers on either side went to war to defend or abolish slavery. But the end result of the fall of the CS was an abolition of slavery.
For many years I did not believe the war was really about slavery, any who remember my first posts here on this site might recall my rather spirited debate about the average CS soldier defending slavery... I did not believe so and used the conscription numbers to show it. What I failed to realize or understand was that even a conscript was defending the flag he fought under and that flag represented a nation w/ its foundation solidly set upon the cornerstone of slavery.
__________________ 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
Hardly... you've implied & insinuated blacks were better off under slavery almost from day one on this site. From the constant efforts to belittle the USCT and attacks against the US armies use of the USCT. Then there was the gleeful pointing out of the death rate in contraband camps
These are utterly false statements.
Not surprised it comes from you- the Champion of Strawman arguments.
~
Note to fellow Southerners:
This is a what passes as a "moderator" on this forum.
I would report his post ...but where would the report go?- to the Strawman.
__________________ 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."
I have no doubt they were with these units, but I see no proof they were soldiers. Personally, I think it likely that a number of them became "soldiers" with a rank of "private" after the war when pensions were being established. I doubt very much they were carried on the rolls as combat soldiers during the war
The information is from rolls made during the war...not after.
The rank of "private" &etc., is from the notations on the rolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
because that would have been illegal under Confederate law.
Tim
Please show us the law that specifically states that blacks could not serve. Certainly the conscription laws required whites to serve...but I don't recall any part of those laws that exclude blacks.
There may have been rules issued by the War Department that excluded blacks...but these are not laws. The War Dept. may have been (at times) lax in enforcing its rules.
__________________ 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."
Well, no. In general, what he is telling you is merely true. If he really were making "utterly false statements", you would present proof to refute what he says. Instead it appears that you just don't like the truth, and thus are engaging in ad hominem attacks on him. My guess is that means you are engaging in what Hitler's propagandist called "the big lie" technique.
You also are issuing an appeal to "Southerners", which apparently means those who believe what you do rather than people from the Southern states. Personally, I have never found a person from the Northern states issuing appeals to "Northerners", and I know quite a few very well-read Southerners who would scorn to be included in the appeal, because they would understand perfectly that what Johan Steele is saying is merely true.
BTW, it is only a couple of months ago that two very respected retired NPS historians told me that the ONLY instance of a verifiable "black Confederate" unit in the field in the Civil War was in April of 1865: the two companies guarding some wagons on the way from Richmond to Farmville. Neil has asked you for examples; you avoided answering; Johan graciously filled in for you; and you called him a liar. It appears he is right, and thus we can see what your "utterly false statements" nonsense amounts 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.
Well, no. In general, what he is telling you is merely true. If he really were making "utterly false statements", you would present proof to refute what he says.
No.
He has to present proof.
johan steele- "you've implied & insinuated blacks were better off under slavery almost from day one on this site"
This is a typical false insinuation made by Northerners on these type threads.
I don't believe I have ever posted anything on this site of my opinions of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You also are issuing an appeal to "Southerners"
...you ever notice there's not too many to appeal to?
Ever wonder why?
Could it be the arrogant/insulting/obnoxious/pompous/self-righteous (take your pick) BS that comes from a certain set of posters?
Where is Thea? Where is Rose? JohnTaylor? etc, etc, etc? Guess they had as much of the BS as they could stand.
__________________ 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 law that specifically states that blacks could not serve. Certainly the conscription laws required whites to serve...but I don't recall any part of those laws that exclude blacks.
There may have been rules issued by the War Department that excluded blacks...but these are not laws. The War Dept. may have been (at times) lax in enforcing its rules.
Battalion, I have long ago shown you the laws. In 1861, the Confederate Congress passed a specific exception to allow blacks to serve as musicians and cooks; you've seen that, and it would not have been necessary if the original law about the Army had allowed it. This is well before the Confederacy passed a conscription law in 1862, so conscription has nothing at all to do with it. You know this, and have known it for a long time. This is merely one more example of you trying to confuse issues by trailing "red herrings" about. Stop spending all your effort on denials and obstruction: open your eyes and accept the facts.
You also know that Pat Cleburne had his career curtailed because he pushed to allow the use of blacks as soldiers in 1864: why did that happen if they were already being used? Answer: because they were not legal in Confederate service.
In 1865, there was a raging debate in Congress about allowing blacks to become Confederate soldiers. You have seen letters from those who opposed it vigorously; you know about the difficulties in getting it passed; you know that even then, with the Confederacy falling apart, a full third of the Confederate Congress still exposed the measure and about the debates on the matter in the papers. If blacks were already allowed as Confederate soldiers for years before that, what is it you think this struggle was about? Be serious.
Stop deceiving yourself. You are not deceiving anyone else, and you are only damaging your own credibility with all the deliberate distortions and misquotes.
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.
Battalion, I have long ago shown you the laws. In 1861, the Confederate Congress passed a specific exception to allow blacks to serve as musicians and cooks; you've seen that, and it would not have been necessary if the original law about the Army had allowed it. This is well before the Confederacy passed a conscription law in 1862, so conscription has nothing at all to do with it. You know this, and have known it for a long time. This is merely one more example of you trying to confuse issues by trailing "red herrings" about. Stop spending all your effort on denials and obstruction: open your eyes and accept the facts.
You also know that Pat Cleburne had his career curtailed because he pushed to allow the use of blacks as soldiers in 1864: why did that happen if they were already being used? Answer: because they were not legal in Confederate service.
In 1865, there was a raging debate in Congress about allowing blacks to become Confederate soldiers. You have seen letters from those who opposed it vigorously; you know about the difficulties in getting it passed; you know that even then, with the Confederacy falling apart, a full third of the Confederate Congress still exposed the measure and about the debates on the matter in the papers. If blacks were already allowed as Confederate soldiers for years before that, what is it you think this struggle was about? Be serious.
Stop deceiving yourself. You are not deceiving anyone else, and you are only damaging your own credibility with all the deliberate distortions and misquotes.
Tim
Where is the law that specifically excludes blacks?
__________________ 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
