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.
Fenner's Battery, Louisiana Light Artillery (December 1863 last roll on file.)
Felix(colored), Pvt. Cook [Rank In-Rank Out], Capt. Fenner's Batty. La. Lt. Arty. Enlisted July 1, 1862, Jackson. Present on all Rolls to Dec., 1863, from time of enlistment.
George(colored) Pvt. Cook, Capt. Fenners Batty. La. Lt. Arty. Enlisted May 16, 1862. Jackson. Rolls from Sept, 1862, to Aug. 7, 1863, Present.
Jake(colored), Cook, Capt. Fenner's Batty. La. Lt. Arty. Enlisted Sept. 25, 1862, Port Hudson, La. Roll for Jan. 1 to June 30, 1863, dated Aug. 7, 1863. Deserted Jan. 19, 1863. Name inadvertently omitted in last Muster Roll.
Joe (colored), Pvt. Capt. Fenner's Batty. La. Lt. Arty. Enlisted July 1, 1862, Jackson, Miss. Present on all Rolls to Oct., 1863. Roll for Nov. and Dec., 1863, Absent, sick, in ___.
Octave (colored), Pvt. Cook Capt. Fenner's La. Lt. Arty. Enlisted July 1, 1862, Jackson. Rolls from Sept., 1862, to Dec., 1863, Present.
Stephen(colored), Cook Capt. Fenner's Batty. La. Lt. Arty. Enlisted May 8, 1863, Osyka. Rolls July, 1863, to Dec., 1863, Present.
~
“Fenner's Battery was organized during the later summer of 1862. It served at Port Hudson and in October had 58 officers and men present for duty. Later the unit was assigned to Maxey's Brigade, Department of Mississippi and East Louisiana. It served for a time at Jackson, then was ordered to Mobile. In April, 1864, it joined the Army of Tennessee with 110 effectives. Assigned to J.W. Eldridge's Battalion of Artillery, the company participated in the Atlanta Campaign and Hood's winter operations in Tennessee. It returned to Mobile, aided in the defense of the city, and surrendered in May, 1865.” http://www.researchonline.net/lacw/unit81.htm
__________________ 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.
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.
I think you were on this board before I was, so I can't say I know what you said when you arrived. I can say that I from the very beginning of my time here, I have seen you deliberately distort and misquote Civil War figures; I have posted to prove it often enough. I have also seen you continue to do so even when you have been shown how you are doing the distortion -- such as the blatant distortion you are repeating with the Sherman quote in your signature, taken completely out of context so that you can seem to make it something else.
When you go to such lengths to show you are willing to deceive other people, and will not even correct yourself when caught at it, your credibility goes right down the tubes. As a result, anyone who reads through this unnecessary nonsense has to discard most of what you say, and you have imposed upon yourself the burden of proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
...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.
JohnTaylor was actually here in late June, maybe early July. I can't say I paid much attention to the other two, so I would not know. But people come and go in these forums, and some people leave simply because they discover when they post and people disagree with them, their ideas look pretty weak and they can't support them.
IMHO, most of what you are talking about are "Southerners" who don't want to see their fond view of the Confederacy challenged, and who take exception to being shown the warts. Lots of Southerners are better than that; they just aren't the ones you are talking about.
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.
Fenner's Battery, Louisiana Light Artillery (December 1863 last roll on file.) ...
Uh-huh. As I said, blacks were allowed to be cooks from 1861 on, and it seems at least 5 of these 6 are listed as such. Isn't that about right? And since none of them has a last name, aren't you a little suspicious of whether they were "slaves brought along by their masters" or not?
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.
JohnTaylor was actually here in late June, maybe early July. I can't say I paid much attention to the other two, so I would not know. But people come and go in these forums, and some people leave simply because they discover when they post and people disagree with them, their ideas look pretty weak and they can't support them.
IMHO, most of what you are talking about are "Southerners" who don't want to see their fond view of the Confederacy challenged, and who take exception to being shown the warts. Lots of Southerners are better than that; they just aren't the ones you are talking about.
Tim
Here are a some excerpts from PMs I have received-
"I no longer post (out of choice and because of the way I and some of my Southern friends have been treated)"
"____ and _____ were so obnoxious and the fact that [mod] wouldn't do anything about the way the Yanks acted"
"[the mod] allow vicious behaviour to go on"
"The truth just kills Yanks and they will do everything in their power to run you off by belittling your sources, etc."
"It was said my Confederate ancestor was a traitor, would have gained slaves if the South had won and I would have slaves today had the South won. I had enjoyed this board up to that point but I choose with care, the threads I currently participate in."
"They are trying to get me banned so I have to be careful"
__________________ 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."
DING DING DING!! Back to your corners men... yikes
Battallion,
The problem as I see it is this. You post a list of men with little or no explanation of why. Then, when we are forced to assume why due to your lack of any detail. You are barraged with elaborate posts loaded with statistics and quotes and army regs etc... And you come back with a one liner... or another list. Where are your facts? And all throughout you post other peoples facts as lies without EVER offering a shred of proof to support your own. In my opinion, your silence has done more to sway me against you (for sake of this topic not personally!) than any other post for this topic. If you can't come up with the facts you need, then the logical conclusion is that they just aren't there.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Trice, you beat me to the punch on that one. I was just about to mention and then saw you had posted on it.
In Jason and Susan Silverman's article "Blacks in Gray: Myth or Reality?" (North and South, Vol.5, #3) they address this issue, albeit fairly briefly, it being an article. Towards the end of the article, they talk about the evidence existing about black soldiers fighting for the south. They say: "There is clear documentation concerning the black regiments that served in the Union Army, with specific information on each unit. There is photo documentation as well, substatiating without a question, that black soldiers fought for the Union. For black Confederates, there is merely an abundance of anecdotal material, which is nonetheless impressive and "sketchy accounts describing what appeared to be blacks acting as soldiers," according to [Tony] Horowitz.
Such respected historians such as Robert Krick at Fredericksburg, James McPherson, Robert Glatthaar, and others have gone through thousands of primary documents from the ACW and none have found evidence to prove that blacks fighting for the south was in any way a common occurrence.
We all know that blacks were used as musicians, teamsters, cooks, laborers, and that many came along as their masters body servants. The reason that we see some listed on the rolls of units is because in some cases, they were entitled to recieve the same pay as a regular enlisted man for their services. The most probable reason they were on the roles as a "pvt" was to allow them to be paid. But that does not make them a combat effective soldier. They were still cooks, or musicians, or whatever other role they were assigned. They were not trained to fight. Five of the six men listed above are listed as cooks, not as loaders for the pieces, or drivers, or ammunition carriers, but as cooks.
There is much evidence to prove that white Southerners did not want to see blacks armed. Why blatantly give them the means to rise up and overthrow white southerners? Blacks were not trusted, for the simple fact that they had been held in bondage for over 200 years, and though some might want to fight for the South, its true, there are probably others who wanted their freedom and would kill to get it. There are numerous letters from Confederate generals and Congressman saying that they just cannot allow it. And even the passage of the bill in March of 1865 had been being hotly debated for some time before.
As I have stated previously, I am sure that there may have been a scattered few blacks who picked up arms for the South. But it is a very, very small number. Blacks fighting for the South was a non-issue when it came to the outcome of the war, because there were so few. And none that did, were likely enlisted, but were body servants, or cooks, or teamsters, or whatever else, who picked up guns and started shooting because they were being shot at. But there is no evidence of an organized, black regiment actually taking part in combat operations for the South in the Civil War.
__________________ "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
You are forgetting that tht reason these documents don't exist is because they were destroyed by the union after the war to hide the truth! Or at least that's what a little SCV told me...
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Uh-huh. As I said, blacks were allowed to be cooks from 1861 on, and it seems at least 5 of these 6 are listed as such. Isn't that about right? And since none of them has a last name, aren't you a little suspicious of whether they were "slaves brought along by their masters" or not?
Tim
Why are 4 enlisted and on the rolls as private?
Why is one listed as private on all rolls (incuding the last existing roll- Dec.'63)?
__________________ 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."
DING DING DING!! Back to your corners men... yikes
Battallion,
The problem as I see it is this. You post a list of men with little or no explanation of why. Then, when we are forced to assume why due to your lack of any detail. You are barraged with elaborate posts loaded with statistics and quotes and army regs etc... And you come back with a one liner... or another list. Where are your facts?
The info is from the National Archives.
The particular sources I am using do not give the entire (detailed) record of the soldier...only the basics- unit, rank, enlistment, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dred
And all throughout you post other peoples facts as lies without EVER offering a shred of proof to support your own.
?
What are you talking about?
No one else has presented any facts.
Just their slimey mis-representations of my statements.
__________________ 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."
The info is from the National Archives.
The particular sources I am using do not give the entire (detailed) record of the soldier...only the basics- unit, rank, enlistment, etc.
?
What are you talking about?
No one else has presented any facts.
Just their slimey mis-representations of my statements.
Case in point. I stated 2 things. Lack of explanation, and profferig others facts as lies (misrepresentation is still a lie) without any proof on your part. You just demonstrated both of those points beautifully.
I shall offer a different view on this subject. Since it is highly evident no official records can be found stating any large number of black troops of the confederacy let's look beyond official records. Throughout the war, hundreds, thousands of men kept diaries, journals, wrote letters home. They wrote about everything! Camp life was broing. If he got out of his tent to chase a squirrel he wrote about it. Even the poor wretches in Andersonville managed to write. If any large regiment of black troops ever fought with a union force, it would have been noteworthy! Hell, to some northerners even seeing a black slave as they marched by was noteworthy enough to write home about! Also, in the south, all these journal writers and diary keepers who would have been in close contact with these men... Southerners found time to write about the black union troops they fought whynot the ones they served with? And yet there is nothing. Large bodies of black troops during this period would have elicited a comment from somebody! There would be evidence, even if it was not official.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
