Reconstruction?

[Dred]

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

Mike,

Ok. I'll bite. Do you have any substantive, documented evidence of black confederates? The quotes were interesting, but really nothing more than sound bites. Any regimental histories? I wanna have an open mind here, but this is pretty thin.

All they have is those snippets.. and a few others like it. Don't bite, you'll just get hungry for more and pickins are slim.

[DJ Psychomike]

Hi Unionblue, our hallucinations which we take as history collapse when they are infused with propaganda and exposed to truth.For example, since Sherman we believed the destruction of civilian cities played a role in ending wars. (This is still a popular belief with the public who usually use the argument of the A- bombs on Japan). However, today not one military historian or branch of the service believes this. Not one. That's why governments today make a big deal out of "targeted bombing". Germany bombing the Brits resulted in the UK rallying against Germany. 911 resulted in Americans rallying and even lefties stopped laughing at people with American flags.

George Orwell first noticed what was being done to our history. In the book 1984 (which remember he began work on it under the name 1948 until his agent freaked out), Orwell proposes a simple lesson. Save the newspaper of an event, then look up to see how the event is looked at further down the road.

Science does this effortlessly. It took an Air Force study during the Viet Nam war to discover what all the historians, pundits and military men missed for an entire century- bombing and attacking civilians rallies civilians. That means all the military history and Air Force strategy experts, not to mention the public, which never seems to know anything, were wrong.

Just as all the historians that moaned if only Lincoln had lived blacks wouldn't have been put in government during reconstruction and it all would have been peachy keen. Once one discovers the images of the Southern government in BIRTH OF A NATION, so fervently believed by all the Civil War buffs and historians all through the 20th Century were racist lies, that simply means the historians were wrong. This is the same period Lincoln goes from being a man to a deity (one recent Lincoln book is called LINCOLN THE REDEEMER. You have to be joking. Redeemer? Isn't this just a little bit sacrilegious? This is balanced Lincoln coverage? Are you joking?

The change that occurred with Lincoln after his assassination (when he suddenly became beloved), the change that happened during reconstruction, and then the deliberate wiping out of history the result of the war- the dropping of reconstruction makes it much easier to make it all look great.

What does science and military planners do that historians don't? I would say 80% of Lincoln books I've seen are re-writes of other books. The bs continues. Science and military thinkers go back and make sure results actually exist, what worked and what didn't, what is true and what isn't. Since prior to World War 1 historians have not done this. It isn't as bad as when I went to school in the South and got a history book that stated the KKK was a benevolent organization that helped poor whites and Blacks, that reconstruction failed because Blacks were too childlike, that Lincoln would have led the nation to the promised land had he lived, I have learned it is very possible for historians to not just be wrong, but wildly wrong. Only by going back can we discover what happened. So, was I at 11 wrong when I rose my hand and said the historians weren't just wrong about the KKK, but were lying?

I don't think so.

So the call "but the experts say" is meaningless to me. There is no history board like there is a science board, Likewise whether or not it is on the internet or in a book doesn't matter to me because 90% of the books are rubbish. The same Carl Sandburg that makes Lincoln fans tear up, I think of as a Stalinist who openly cheered the USSR when it exploded an Atomic bomb. Yet his saccharine rubbish is still taught in schools. Good lord.

You know if there was one thread here on HOW WE WERE WRONG ABOUT LINCOLN about his changing image that would be one thing. There is no such thread on any Civil War board I've seen. There is no Civil War art or films that shows blacks fighting for the South. Even if you dismiss the Confederate soldier this leaves the slaves and freed Blacks who upon realizing their women would be raped, the home burned and supplies taken stood by the women to fight. And these collectors talk about the glories of fighting racism. Oh please.

When one goes back to Lincoln one finds a manic depressive with suicidal tendencies. A lawyer who abandoned the rule of law for the gun. And then had no plan as to what to do with the South after the war. All the poems, all the deification, all the smokescreens simply aren't enough anymore.


FOOTNOTE: BLACK CONFEDERATES:

Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. He writes, “During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ‘soldier’ is crossed out and ‘body servant’ inserted, or ‘teamster’ on pension applications.” Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that “…some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country” and that by doing so they were “demonstrating it’s possible to hate the system of slavery and love one’s country.” This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers, even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.
Noted Examples:

1. The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas (or 1st Battle of Bull Run) where they operated battery no. 2. In addition two black “regiments”, one free and one slave, participated in the battle on behalf of the South. “Many colored people were killed in the action”, recorded John Parker, a former slave. 2. At least one Black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer. James Washington, Co. D 35th Texas Cavalry, Confederate States Army, became it’s 3rd Sergeant. Higher ranking black commissioned officers served in militia units, but this was on the State militia level (Louisiana) and not in the regular C.S. Army.
3. Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army where blacks did not receive equal pay. At the Confederate Buffalo Forge in Rockbridge County, Virginia, skilled black workers "earned on average three times the wages of white Confederate soldiers and more than most Confederate army officers ($350- $600 a year).
4. Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
5. Frederick Douglas reported, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels.”
6. Black and white militiamen returned heavy fire on Union troops at the Battle of Griswoldsville (near Macon, GA). Approximately 600 boys and elderly men were killed in this skirmish.
7. In 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France. France showed interest but Britain refused.
8. The Jackson Battalion included two companies of black soldiers. They saw combat at Petersburg under Col. Shipp. "My men acted with utmost promptness and goodwill...Allow me to state sir that they behaved in an extraordinary acceptable manner."
9. Recently the National Park Service, with a recent discovery, recognized that blacks were asked to help defend the city of Petersburg, Virginia and were offered their freedom if they did so. Regardless of their official classification, black Americans performed support functions that in today's army many would be classified as official military service. The successes of white Confederate troops in battle, could only have been achieved with the support these loyal black Southerners.
10. Confederate General John B. Gordon (Army of Northern Virginia) reported that all of his troops were in favor of Colored troops and that it’s adoption would have “greatly encouraged the army”. Gen. Lee was anxious to receive regiments of black soldiers. The Richmond Sentinel reported on 24 Mar 1864, “None…will deny that our servants are more worthy of respect than the motley hordes which come against us.” “Bad faith [to black Confederates] must be avoided as an indelible dishonor.”
11. In March 1865, Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary Of State, promised freedom for blacks who served from the State of Virginia. Authority for this was finally received from the State of Virginia and on April 1st 1865, $100 bounties were offered to black soldiers. Benjamin exclaimed, “Let us say to every Negro who wants to go into the ranks, go and fight, and you are free…Fight for your masters and you shall have your freedom.” Confederate Officers were ordered to treat them humanely and protect them from "injustice and oppression".
12. A quota was set for 300,000 black soldiers for the Confederate States Colored Troops. 83% of Richmond's male slave population volunteered for duty. A special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms for these men. Before Richmond fell, black Confederates in gray uniforms drilled in the streets. Due to the war ending, it is believed only companies or squads of these troops ever saw any action. Many more black soldiers fought for the North, but that difference was simply a difference because the North instituted this progressive policy more sooner than the more conservative South. Black soldiers from both sides received discrimination from whites who opposed the concept .
13. Union General U.S. Grant in Feb 1865, ordered the capture of “all the Negro men… before the enemy can put them in their ranks.” Frederick Douglas warned Lincoln that unless slaves were guaranteed freedom (those in Union controlled areas were still slaves) and land bounties, “they would take up arms for the rebels”.

Author, Historian William C. Davis on Black Confederates:

Noted Civil War historian/Author William C. Davis writes about the forgotten black Confederates: "One of the lost chapters of Civil War history has been the passive and even active support that many southern blacks, free and slave, gave to the Confederacy. "Forgotten Confederates" illuminates the overlooked facet of this seemingly contradictory behavior by a group of African Americans who appear to have thought of themselves as Southerners first and blacks second. Neither Confederate history, nor black studies, can afford to ignore it."

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike

[font=Arial][size=2]FOOTNOTE: BLACK CONFEDERATES:

Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. He writes, “During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ‘soldier’ is crossed out and ‘body servant’ inserted, or ‘teamster’ on pension applications.” Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that “…some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country” and that by doing so they were “demonstrating it’s possible to hate the system of slavery and love one’s country.” This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers, even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war.
Noted Examples:

1. The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas (or 1st Battle of Bull Run) where they operated battery no. 2. In addition two black “regiments”, one free and one slave, participated in the battle on behalf of the South. “Many colored people were killed in the action”, recorded John Parker, a former slave. 2. At least one Black Confederate was a non-commissioned officer. James Washington, Co. D 35th Texas Cavalry, Confederate States Army, became it’s 3rd Sergeant. Higher ranking black commissioned officers served in militia units, but this was on the State militia level (Louisiana) and not in the regular C.S. Army.
3. Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army where blacks did not receive equal pay. At the Confederate Buffalo Forge in Rockbridge County, Virginia, skilled black workers "earned on average three times the wages of white Confederate soldiers and more than most Confederate army officers ($350- $600 a year).
4. Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
5. Frederick Douglas reported, “There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels.”
6. Black and white militiamen returned heavy fire on Union troops at the Battle of Griswoldsville (near Macon, GA). Approximately 600 boys and elderly men were killed in this skirmish.
7. In 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France. France showed interest but Britain refused.
8. The Jackson Battalion included two companies of black soldiers. They saw combat at Petersburg under Col. Shipp. "My men acted with utmost promptness and goodwill...Allow me to state sir that they behaved in an extraordinary acceptable manner."
9. Recently the National Park Service, with a recent discovery, recognized that blacks were asked to help defend the city of Petersburg, Virginia and were offered their freedom if they did so. Regardless of their official classification, black Americans performed support functions that in today's army many would be classified as official military service. The successes of white Confederate troops in battle, could only have been achieved with the support these loyal black Southerners.
10. Confederate General John B. Gordon (Army of Northern Virginia) reported that all of his troops were in favor of Colored troops and that it’s adoption would have “greatly encouraged the army”. Gen. Lee was anxious to receive regiments of black soldiers. The Richmond Sentinel reported on 24 Mar 1864, “None…will deny that our servants are more worthy of respect than the motley hordes which come against us.” “Bad faith [to black Confederates] must be avoided as an indelible dishonor.”
11. In March 1865, Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary Of State, promised freedom for blacks who served from the State of Virginia. Authority for this was finally received from the State of Virginia and on April 1st 1865, $100 bounties were offered to black soldiers. Benjamin exclaimed, “Let us say to every Negro who wants to go into the ranks, go and fight, and you are free…Fight for your masters and you shall have your freedom.” Confederate Officers were ordered to treat them humanely and protect them from "injustice and oppression".
12. A quota was set for 300,000 black soldiers for the Confederate States Colored Troops. 83% of Richmond's male slave population volunteered for duty. A special ball was held in Richmond to raise money for uniforms for these men. Before Richmond fell, black Confederates in gray uniforms drilled in the streets. Due to the war ending, it is believed only companies or squads of these troops ever saw any action. Many more black soldiers fought for the North, but that difference was simply a difference because the North instituted this progressive policy more sooner than the more conservative South. Black soldiers from both sides received discrimination from whites who opposed the concept .
13. Union General U.S. Grant in Feb 1865, ordered the capture of “all the Negro men… before the enemy can put them in their ranks.” Frederick Douglas warned Lincoln that unless slaves were guaranteed freedom (those in Union controlled areas were still slaves) and land bounties, “they would take up arms for the rebels”.

Author, Historian William C. Davis on Black Confederates:

Noted Civil War historian/Author William C. Davis writes about the forgotten black Confederates: "One of the lost chapters of Civil War history has been the passive and even active support that many southern blacks, free and slave, gave to the Confederacy. "Forgotten Confederates" illuminates the overlooked facet of this seemingly contradictory behavior by a group of African Americans who appear to have thought of themselves as Southerners first and blacks second. Neither Confederate history, nor black studies, can afford to ignore it."

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/count...is/blackcs.htm

DJ,

From what site did you pull the above from? Please be honest and provide the URL.

Or at least tell me from what source you copied this from, for I have seen it a thousand times. Give me a break and let me know from where.

Unionblue

[Dred]

lol.. its that stupid site.. the ONLY one anybody making these claims ever use. Yea... that guy really looks like a soldier!! Why? cause he has a haversack and a 3 tin cups? It's called contraband, crap he found on the field dropped by dead, dying, retreating soldiers. Where's his weapon? And his clothes SCREAM something he stole out of Master's closet while he was away. Ughh... I hate that sight, don't get me started with all that's wrong on that site! (dam too late)

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike

Hi Unionblue, our hallucinations which we take as history collapse when they are infused with propaganda and exposed to truth.For example, since Sherman we believed the destruction of civilian cities played a role in ending wars. (This is still a popular belief with the public who usually use the argument of the A- bombs on Japan). However, today not one military historian or branch of the service believes this. Not one. That's why governments today make a big deal out of "targeted bombing". Germany bombing the Brits resulted in the UK rallying against Germany. 911 resulted in Americans rallying and even lefties stopped laughing at people with American flags.

George Orwell first noticed what was being done to our history. In the book 1984 (which remember he began work on it under the name 1948 until his agent freaked out), Orwell proposes a simple lesson. Save the newspaper of an event, then look up to see how the event is looked at further down the road.

Science does this effortlessly. It took an Air Force study during the Viet Nam war to discover what all the historians, pundits and military men missed for an entire century- bombing and attacking civilians rallies civilians. That means all the military history and Air Force strategy experts, not to mention the public, which never seems to know anything, were wrong.

Just as all the historians that moaned if only Lincoln had lived blacks wouldn't have been put in government during reconstruction and it all would have been peachy keen. Once one discovers the images of the Southern government in BIRTH OF A NATION, so fervently believed by all the Civil War buffs and historians all through the 20th Century were racist lies, that simply means the historians were wrong. This is the same period Lincoln goes from being a man to a deity (one recent Lincoln book is called LINCOLN THE REDEEMER. You have to be joking. Redeemer? Isn't this just a little bit sacrilegious? This is balanced Lincoln coverage? Are you joking?

The change that occurred with Lincoln after his assassination (when he suddenly became beloved), the change that happened during reconstruction, and then the deliberate wiping out of history the result of the war- the dropping of reconstruction makes it much easier to make it all look great.

What does science and military planners do that historians don't? I would say 80% of Lincoln books I've seen are re-writes of other books. The bs continues. Science and military thinkers go back and make sure results actually exist, what worked and what didn't, what is true and what isn't. Since prior to World War 1 historians have not done this. It isn't as bad as when I went to school in the South and got a history book that stated the KKK was a benevolent organization that helped poor whites and Blacks, that reconstruction failed because Blacks were too childlike, that Lincoln would have led the nation to the promised land had he lived, I have learned it is very possible for historians to not just be wrong, but wildly wrong. Only by going back can we discover what happened. So, was I at 11 wrong when I rose my hand and said the historians weren't just wrong about the KKK, but were lying?

I don't think so.

So the call "but the experts say" is meaningless to me. There is no history board like there is a science board, Likewise whether or not it is on the internet or in a book doesn't matter to me because 90% of the books are rubbish. The same Carl Sandburg that makes Lincoln fans tear up, I think of as a Stalinist who openly cheered the USSR when it exploded an Atomic bomb. Yet his saccharine rubbish is still taught in schools. Good lord.

You know if there was one thread here on HOW WE WERE WRONG ABOUT LINCOLN about his changing image that would be one thing. There is no such thread on any Civil War board I've seen. There is no Civil War art or films that shows blacks fighting for the South. Even if you dismiss the Confederate soldier this leaves the slaves and freed Blacks who upon realizing their women would be raped, the home burned and supplies taken stood by the women to fight. And these collectors talk about the glories of fighting racism. Oh please.

When one goes back to Lincoln one finds a manic depressive with suicidal tendencies. A lawyer who abandoned the rule of law for the gun. And then had no plan as to what to do with the South after the war. All the poems, all the deification, all the smokescreens simply aren't enough anymore.

DJ,

This portion of your post is simply a "rant" as I believe it is called. Again, your opinion, your belief, no matter how often repeated = nothing when it comes to historical fact.

When you use some, I will offer a reply, not opinion.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[Hanny]

quote]
For example, since Sherman we believed the destruction of civilian cities played a role in ending wars. [/quote]
Bold claim, cite any urban centre Sherman destroyed, and any historian who credits that example with the ending of the war.
When you posted we, you dont mean educated europeans who know and are taught that desturuction of property to demonstrate that the government is unable to protect it, or unwilling to protect it bt offering battle to protect it, is tactic of war practised as far back as the wriiten record goes So i dont know who we is, but ist not anyone witha mil historian education behind them.

(This is still a popular belief with the public who usually use the argument of the A- bombs on Japan).

Us Public understandibly think that to be the case because USA official history of the war expalinh that to be the case.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/Bo.../books-era.htm here is one online edu of current and past US mil cadets etc who are taught this, Morton is the author your looking for in the standard teaching text of command desicions.

However, today not one military historian or branch of the service believes this.

Bold calim the US war war colleges all teach that oppoisite of your claim, of course what they belive is another matter, but what is taught is more to the point.

[quote]
Not one.
Ok, US Army teaches that the use of nukes caused the offer of surrener, so that that one orgainsation and many war colleges, heres number two, the USAF http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thry.htm#gen and it hasa large number of colleges teaching the same.

That's why governments today make a big deal out of "targeted bombing". Germany bombing the Brits resulted in the UK rallying against Germany. 911 resulted in Americans rallying and even lefties stopped laughing at people with American flags.

In ww2 targetted bombing got much more attention than post war, not because of its effect of civilian morale, but because of the legal problems of collateral cvilian deaths actually being crimes unless the target was not the civilan in the first place.


You do know the entire LW bombing munitions tonnage dropped on the Uk was execced in one weeks Uk bombing on Germany by the RAF in 44 or 45 right?.

[DJ Psychomike]

-------------------------------------------------------The link was provided Unionblue. It also stated soldiers roles were doctored clearly on documents of the day.

But let's say there weren't any. Not one.

That still leaves the slave that didn't rise up when emancipated. That still leaves the slaves who once they realized that not just the white women were being raped, but so were slaves. So they fought the advancing troops too.

That still leaves that moment out of history.

That still leaves my claim that the entire history of the Civil War believed in during the 20th Century, to be wrong.

I noted on the site of military links that Hanny mentioned there was NO link to carpet bombing or bombing civilians to achieve moral depression. There WAS shock and awe, which I have read. There it is very clearly stated that precision targetting of government, military and utilities
takes precedent over civilians.

So I stand my ground. We do not do carpet bombing anymore. The Office of Wartime Information stopped WW 2, but before I get admonished for bringing up WW 2, google it and check the CIA link. I gave a talk on this and a Japanese news station actually flew in to cover it. It is funny to watch the news report because someone is speaking Japanese over me!

(Interesting footnote: We did NOT use shock and awe on Iraq. The reason, the Russians and Chinese have not seen how it is done. We did precision bombing which the press was calling shock and awe - not the military. A look at the news coverage will show commentators going out of their way to say they were avoiding civilian populations. I didn't say we no longer bomb, I said we no longer carpet bomb civilian targets.

I had lunch with Tommy Franks at Hooters after a talk at the National Strategy Group- the press, like historians who ignore declassified material or overwhelming quotes, is wrong!).

FOOTNOTE 2: I have started a blog to examine the declassified soon- to- be - released POND documents, the only real Intel group we ever had. If you like history from OSS to the CIA, you may be interested in this blog.
http://thepond.blogdrive.com

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by DJ Psychomike

-------------------------------------------------------The link was provided Unionblue. It also stated soldiers roles were doctored clearly on documents of the day.

DJ, I apologize for not recognizing the web site you provided. I went back on it and clicked and found it was a site I have seen numerous times before and have refuted in the past along with others at this board. In other words, it is filled with half-truths, misquotes and out-of-context phrases and I am not going down that weary path again.

But let's say there weren't any. Not one.

OK.

That still leaves the slave that didn't rise up when emancipated.

And how many of the 180,000 former slaves that enlisted in the Union army that fought in the South, they don't count, right?

That still leaves the slaves who once they realized that not just the white women were being raped, but so were slaves. So they fought the advancing troops too.

DJ, I am not very clear about what you are trying to say in the first sentence above about white women being raped, etc. Want to clear that up for me a bit?

Again, the website and your opinion do not amount to any serious proof that large numbers of black slaves fought under arms against the Union army. Confederate generals and leaders wrote of their frustration at slaves leaving or escaping every time Union forces were near and also complained that they simply could not be trusted.

That still leaves that moment out of history.

The reason it is left out of history is because it simply did not occur as you and the author of the website wishes it did. There is simply not enough verified documentation that leads anyone, who is serious about researching historical fact, that there was anything close to 65,000 armed, black Confederate soldiers within the ranks of the Confederate Army.

That still leaves my claim that the entire history of the Civil War believed in during the 20th Century, to be wrong.

At least you are correct in this statement, that this is YOUR claim and not any serious scholar of history.

I noted on the site of military links that Hanny mentioned there was NO link to carpet bombing or bombing civilians to achieve moral depression. There WAS shock and awe, which I have read. There it is very clearly stated that precision targetting of government, military and utilities
takes precedent over civilians.

So I stand my ground. We do not do carpet bombing anymore. The Office of Wartime Information stopped WW 2, but before I get admonished for bringing up WW 2, google it and check the CIA link. I gave a talk on this and a Japanese news station actually flew in to cover it. It is funny to watch the news report because someone is speaking Japanese over m

And this has what to do with Reconstruction?

(Interesting footnote: We did NOT use shock and awe on Iraq. The reason, the Russians and Chinese have not seen how it is done. We did precision bombing which the press was calling shock and awe - not the military. A look at the news coverage will show commentators going out of their way to say they were avoiding civilian populations. I didn't say we no longer bomb, I said we no longer carpet bomb civilian targets.

Again, your opinion above has what to do with Reconstruction or Black Confederates?

I had lunch with Tommy Franks at Hooters after a talk at the National Strategy Group- the press, like historians who ignore declassified material or overwhelming quotes, is wrong!).

It's nice to see ol' Tommy getting out more and enjoying the view at Hooters. Did you get him "on the record" on your impression of history being wrong?

FOOTNOTE 2: I have started a blog to examine the declassified soon- to- be - released POND documents, the only real Intel group we ever had. If you like history from OSS to the CIA, you may be interested in this blog.
http://thepond.blogdrive.com

DJ, I am here on a Civil War Forum because I like to talk about and discuss the Civil War.

As a former member of the Army Security Agency, working with the National Security Agency for 20 years, which also worked in conjunction with the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSS, AFSS, etc., I doubt there is very much you could present to me that I have not encountered, briefed, reported on, etc., when working with those various agency's.

But enjoy your new blog.

Unionblue

[Hanny]

That still leaves the slave that didn't rise up when emancipated. That still leaves the slaves who once they realized that not just the white women were being raped, but so were slaves. So they fought the advancing troops too.

Given the mass movement of negro during the war period, with Miss for insatnce losing 30% of its negro poulation who fled to the union lines and had not retuned by the 1870 census, its clear you need to read up on interegional movements, and you will find that the change of negro residency changes more then, than at any time untill ww2 when the next mega interegional poulation movement in the US occurs.

That still leaves that moment out of history.

No, its in history, it just dont mean what yopu wnat it to mean.

That still leaves my claim that the entire history of the Civil War believed in during the 20th Century, to be wrong.

Well, lets just say its a claim treated with the same regard as the flat earth societys claim, not one sustained by any scientific scrutiny.

I noted on the site of military links that Hanny mentioned there was NO link to carpet bombing or bombing civilians to achieve moral depression. There WAS shock and awe, which I have read. There it is very clearly stated that precision targetting of government, military and utilities
takes precedent over civilians.

In ww2, to plan and execute any arial attack with intent to kill civilans wasa crime, which was why no allied power did so, while the Axis powers did, and were tried at nurmeburg, and exectiuted pilots for conuction it, planners for planning, it and officers in teh chain of command who impemented it. Example at Nurmeburg were Belgrade, Rotterdam. Exampe in GW1 was the taking off of water/salination targets which would constitutre a war crime if bombed.

So I stand my ground. We do not do carpet bombing anymore. The Office of Wartime Information stopped WW 2, but before I get admonished for bringing up WW 2, google it and check the CIA link. I gave a talk on this and a Japanese news station actually flew in to cover it. It is funny to watch the news report because someone is speaking Japanese over me!

I like a stuborn man, lets see how good you are at defending your posistions, unlike say, make a claim and then refuse to support it and hope no one was paying any attention. Was the Japanse asking how come the US said it wanted Unconditionla Japaense surrender, yet how come when the Japanse offered to surrneder ofn the sole conditional of the retentionand immunity of the Emperor, the US said, yes, thats what we mean by unconditional surrender, wars over folks we won.

So no more carpet bombing you claim, that when you use dumb ordinance in mass to hit your target becuase of circamstances preventing acurate munition drops. And know we use smart presicion munitions, and can hit what we want. Av smart munition used is 500lbs, average target in iraq is not structiually able to contain the balst radius of high mortaility probability, ergo teh target is hit extremly acuratly, but uninteded colatera damage is inflicted, how is that any different from what passed as carpet bombing unteneded collaterla damage?.

(Interesting footnote: We did NOT use shock and awe on Iraq. The reason, the Russians and Chinese have not seen how it is done. We did precision bombing which the press was calling shock and awe - not the military. A look at the news coverage will show commentators going out of their way to say they were avoiding civilian populations. I didn't say we no longer bomb, I said we no longer carpet bomb civilian targets.

is this one of your posistion?, do a google search and you can see the head of Us planning explain therre were going with the shock and awe plan for iraq, the reason the press called it that, was because that what the mil told them it was called.

I had lunch with Tommy Franks at Hooters after a talk at the National Strategy Group- the press, like historians who ignore declassified material or overwhelming quotes, is wrong!).

Did he stick you with the bill?, and when you next see him ask for an explantion of the following.
Coalition Media centre
On the third day of the War in Iraq, General Tommy Franks made his first appearance at centcom's Coalition Media Center, outside Doha. "Let me begin by saying this will be a campaign unlike any other in history," he declared, "a campaign characterized by shock, by surprise [shock and awe], by flexibility, by the employment of precise munitions on a scale never seen before, and by the application of overwhelming force."

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by unionblue

The reason it is left out of history is because it simply did not occur as you and the author of the website wishes it did. There is simply not enough verified documentation that leads anyone, who is serious about researching historical fact, that there was anything close to 65,000 armed, black Confederate soldiers within the ranks of the Confederate Army.

You have misrepresented the site.

Here is the actual quote-

"It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, 'saw the elephant' also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free."

The site does not say that the 65,000 were officially enlisted as soldiers. It plainly indicates that most were not.