Lack of Confederate OR accounts of blacks in the ranks.

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,060
#61
***Posted as Moderator***
The topic is "Lack of Confederate OR accounts of Blacks in the Ranks". That specifically limits discussion to the ORs.
Please stay on topic.

You are welcome to participate in any of the 'Black Confederate' threads available which have a wider focus.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
#63
Not quite seeing your point, once again blacks or any other race for that matter, in non segregated units North (pre-USCT) would not be readily distinguishable to say "I know that the US solders were white because the OR indicates there were no USCT at the battle." The majority would have been, but it wouldn't be absolute, so why even make such an assertion?
I made the comment in response to what you said. I made the point that in the case of Gettysburg, which you referred to, we know there were no black soldiers because there were no USCT regiments.

You say nothing is absolute, fine. I will say that there there is a 99% probability that the Union soldiers at Gettysburg were white. Do you disagree? If you agree, then that means you agree with the point I was making. If you think there wasn't a 99% probability, then I must ask why you think otherwise.

I use the same standard then I use today. I respect anyone's service, whether I support the conflict they served in is irrelevant, as is how many others of a particular group served. Nor do I feel any need to question their motives or sincerity whether they served out devotion to country/cause, or if it represented economic or educational opportunities to them, or whether they were drafted/impressed and didn't volunteer at all, they still served.
That is all unrelated to the point I was making.

- Alan
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,685
Location
mo
#64
I made the comment in response to what you said. I made the point that in the case of Gettysburg, which you referred to, we know there were no black soldiers because there were no USCT regiments.

You say nothing is absolute, fine. I will say that there there is a 99% probability that the Union soldiers at Gettysburg were white. Do you disagree? If you agree, then that means you agree with the point I was making. If you think there wasn't a 99% probability, then I must ask why you think otherwise.



That is all unrelated to the point I was making.

- Alan
If I think theres a 99% percent chance of something, I dont discount the 1 % as it obviously exists

Nor do I discount peoples service, It doesn't matter if 90% of the army was white, or 99%, or even 99.99%, why discount the minority? Just because a group is in the minority, it doesn't mean they dont exist...…

As to the second part being unrelated, it would be if one has no problem discounting peoples service...I simply noted I dont discount it. If you do, I'll note it and note I disagree, service isn't based on many how others served at all

Honestly all this always seems somewhat a herring to me, frankly the real issue is did blacks make contributions to the confederate war effort, and they did. Whether in official or in unofficial capacities, as teamsters, cooks, servants, laborers, in the navy, and working in the munition factories ect. Both as freed men and as slaves. The lets not call them soldiers argument doesn't change their contributions however. And again the original OP specifically said and included slaves who wouldn't be enlisted, as they were slaves. Some even demonstrated pride in their contributions/service by attending reunions postwar, so I really dont see this need to belittle them
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
#65
If I think theres a 99% percent of something, I dont discount the 1 % as it obviously exists
Fine.

Nor do I discount peoples service, It doesn't matter if 90% of the army was white, or 99%, or even 99.9%, why discount the minority? Just because a group is in the minority, it doesn't mean they dont exist...…

As to the second part being unrelated, it would be if one has no problem discounting peoples service...I simply noted I dont discount it. If you do, I'll note it and note I disagree, service isn't based on many how others served at all
You seem to making the argument that I am discounting somebody's service. I am not. I am responding to a question you asked about blacks being in battle at Gettysburg. I made the point that since there were no USCT at Gettysburg, we can say with 99% that there were no black Union soldiers there.

You seem to feel that my stating this amounts to discounting somebody's service. That is simply not true. I'm just stating statistics.

All this seems somewhat a herring to me, frankly the real issue is did blacks make contributions to the confederate war effort, and they did. Whether in official or in unofficial capacities, as teamsters, cooks, servants, laborers, in the munition factories ect. Both as freed men and as slaves. The lets not call them soldiers argument doesn't change their contributions however. And again the original OP specifically said and included slaves who wouldn't be enlisted, as they were slaves. Some even demonstrated pride in doing so postwar by attending reunions ect.
I was not getting into any of this. I challenged your assertion that we couldn't tell the race of people from the OR if an officer didn't specifically state the race of a soldier. I disagree with it. If we know that USCT were not involved in a battle, certainly by mid-1863, then we can say that there's a 99% chance that no black US soldiers were present. Why this is a hard concept to understand, I do not know.

My main point is that we can get clues about the ethnicity of persons in battle by looking at things such as the names of the regiments, and knowing, for example, if they were colored regiments. We can broaden our understanding and improve our interpretation of the OR by applying certain information and putting it into context.

All of the other stuff, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying here.

- Alan
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,685
Location
mo
#66
Fine.



You seem to making the argument that I am discounting somebody's service. I am not. I am responding to a question you asked about blacks being in battle at Gettysburg. I made the point that since there were no USCT at Gettysburg, we can say with 99% that there were no black Union soldiers there.

You seem to feel that my stating this amounts to discounting somebody's service. That is simply not true. I'm just stating statistics.



I was not getting into any of this. I challenged your assertion that we couldn't tell the race of people from the OR if an officer didn't specifically state the race of a soldier. I disagree with it. If we know that USCT were not involved in a battle, certainly by mid-1863, then we can say that there's a 99% chance that no black US soldiers were present. Why this is a hard concept to understand, I do not know.

My main point is that we can get clues about the ethnicity of persons in battle by looking at things such as the names of the regiments, and knowing, for example, if they were colored regiments. We can broaden our understanding and improve our interpretation of the OR by applying certain information and putting it into context.

All of the other stuff, it has nothing to do with what I'm saying here.

- Alan
You keep saying no USCT were at Gettysburg, but when specifically asked if your saying no free blacks or other minorities enlisted in state forces before the creation of the USCT, you said your not.....So again the lack of segregated units, doesn't rule out minorities in non segregated units

I'm not the one making claims that NO blacks served in the CSA or that ALL the troops at Gettysburg were white......I'm simply noting I would think to make absolute claims of "NO" or "ALL" would require more then 99% in my opinion.

Edit-added, Whats curious to me is that I would imagine women in either army was far less then minorities, yet we know in rare examples women did serve incognito masquerading as men......yet there doesn't seem to be this virulent need of some to deny their existence completely...…..which I would think would also raise the possibility of light skinned blacks passing themselves off as white also in either army
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
#67
You keep saying no USCT were at Gettysburg, but when specidically asked if your saying no free blacks or other minorities enlisted in state forces before the creation of the USCT, you said your not.....So again the lack of segregated units, doesn't rule out minorities in non segregated units
If your point is that it doesn't rule it out, then we agree, because anything is possible, there are exceptions to every rule, and there are always outliers.

Having said that, I believe that 99% or more of the US troops at Gettysburg were white. I base this on the fact that the OR's do not report the presence of USCT regiments.

I am aware that there was a small number of black men who were enlisted in white regiments as soldiers. I have never seen any evidence that these men amounted to more than 1% of those white regiments, or even as much as 0.5% of such units. If I am wrong, someone will surely correct me... but I very much doubt that will happen. There is in fact some research that's been done on blacks in white regiments, we may even have a thread on it on this forum. I don't know it I have the desire, energy, or enthusiasm to research to look at that, but who knows, maybe I'll do it.

RE: I'm not the one making claims that NO blacks served in the CSA...

Who is? Feel free to direct this comment to those who are making that claim.

RE: I'm not the one making claims that... ALL the troops at Gettysburg were white......I'm simply noting I would think to make absolute claims of "NO" or "ALL" would require more then 99% in my opinion.

I believe that 99% or more of the US troops at Gettysburg were white. I base this on the fact that the OR's do not report the presence of USCT regiments. If you think 99% is too low a bar to say all, then fine.

- Alan
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,685
Location
mo
#68
So your saying you went from
If I know there were no USCT at Gettysburg, for example, I can assume all the Union men were white,
If your point is that it doesn't rule it out, then we agree, because anything is possible
Having said that, I believe that 99% or more of the US troops at Gettysburg were white

Dont blame you frankly, at face value to imply not one minority would be in a sample of over 100,000 Union men at Gettysburg did seem rather ridiculous...….. Just dont know why one would imply all the Union men were white in the first place, as it would be rather incredulous, instead of simply saying the majority was...….. Thats the part I dont understand frankly....the apparent need to eliminate minorities completely. We must pretend they didn't exist at all.....

And yes the defination of all is "used to refer to the whole quantity" not 99% of the quantity, so it wouldn't meet the bar by defination......
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
#69
So your saying you went from

Dont blame you frankly, at face value to imply not one minority would be in a sample of over 100,000 Union men at Gettysburg did seem rather ridiculous...….. Just dont know why one would imply all the Union men were white in the first place, as it would be rather incredulous, instead of simply saying the majority was...….. Thats the part I dont understand frankly....the apparent need to eliminate minorities completely
You are hung up over the idea of 99% versus 100%.

There is no "need" to eliminate minorities. If 99% or more of non-USCT soldiers were white then sheer demographics eliminates minorities. This has nothing to do with intent, it's about the numbers.

Saying a majority is misleading. A majority can be 51%. 99% is not merely a majority. If the goal is to discuss the ethnicity of people at Gettysburg, then saying that 99% or more were white is more informative than just saying a minority was. Simply saying a minority was non-white opens the possibility that 49% were non-white... but that was not the case.

Can I prove with any certainty that there wasn't a 1%? I can't. You got me there.

- Alan
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,685
Location
mo
#70
You are hung up over the idea of 99% versus 100%.

There is no "need" to eliminate minorities. If 99% or more of non-USCT soldiers were white then sheer demographics eliminates minorities. This has nothing to do with intent, it's about the numbers.

Saying a majority is misleading. A majority can be 51%. 99% is not merely a majority. If the goal is to discuss the ethnicity of people at Gettysburg, then saying that 99% or more were white is more informative than just saying a minority was. Simply saying a minority was non-white opens the possibility that 49% were non-white... but that was not the case.

Can I prove with any certainty that there wasn't a 1%? I can't. You got me there.

- Alan
There no point in going incircles, but it would seem to me I'm not the one hung up on 99% compared to 100% as I can acknowledge they aren't the same or feel the need to use absolute terms that exclude anyone...99% still isn't all…..You can have the last word however
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,785
Location
Texas
#71
If I think theres a 99% percent chance of something, I dont discount the 1 % as it obviously exists

Nor do I discount peoples service, It doesn't matter if 90% of the army was white, or 99%, or even 99.99%, why discount the minority? Just because a group is in the minority, it doesn't mean they dont exist...…

As to the second part being unrelated, it would be if one has no problem discounting peoples service...I simply noted I dont discount it. If you do, I'll note it and note I disagree, service isn't based on many how others served at all

Honestly all this always seems somewhat a herring to me, frankly the real issue is did blacks make contributions to the confederate war effort, and they did. Whether in official or in unofficial capacities, as teamsters, cooks, servants, laborers, in the navy, and working in the munition factories ect. Both as freed men and as slaves. The lets not call them soldiers argument doesn't change their contributions however. And again the original OP specifically said and included slaves who wouldn't be enlisted, as they were slaves. Some even demonstrated pride in their contributions/service by attending reunions postwar, so I really dont see this need to belittle them
But, during the WAR the confederates didn't see the need to give then much of ANY credit for what they did during the war, why are folk so all afire to do so now? The confederacy didn't call them soldiers, I find little to NO references from Confederates in the ranks DURING the war, to call them soldiers, I don't see any monuments TO slaves/blacks being put up right after the war...

Edited; modern politics

Kevin Dally
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,864
#72
But, during the WAR the confederates didn't see the need to give then much of ANY credit for what they did during the war, why are folk so all afire to do so now? The confederacy didn't call them soldiers, I find little to NO references from Confederates in the ranks DURING the war, to call them soldiers, I don't see any monuments TO slaves/blacks being put up right after the war...
Edited; modern politics
Kevin Dally
Due to white supremacy. All info was controlled by the Union after the war. That is why it is quietly done in the OR's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
3,685
Location
mo
#73
But, during the WAR the confederates didn't see the need to give then much of ANY credit for what they did during the war, why are folk so all afire to do so now? The confederacy didn't call them soldiers, I find little to NO references from Confederates in the ranks DURING the war, to call them soldiers, I don't see any monuments TO slaves/blacks being put up right after the war...
Are modern pro Confederates admitting Confederates somehow made a mistake on this subject?

Kevin Dally
I dont see "why are folk so all afire to do so now"......the vast majority I've seen are people acknowledging they existed in very limited numbers if as enlisted and upwards of 100,000 if counting all slaves, laborers, teamsters, fortification workers, ect. That a few felt they did isn't new, as witnessed by reunion attendance.

The ones claiming there were tens of thousands of enlisted soldiers seem as rare as the ones claiming they didn't exist at all. I've always had the impression the majority doesn't take either extreme view. Also I've never meet anyone pro confederate who has advocated they wish the confederacy won. If they exist, tend to think they'd also be in such rare numbers to not be concerned. Though occasionally hear a few conspiracy nuts who seem to think the KGC is still out there, still guarding Jesse James gold even.…..but theres a few who think bigfoot is out there too...…..they may even be the same people, who knows
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,060
#77
The writers of the OR’s say so themselves.
If so, please post your evidence.
The published volumes acknowledge that transcription errors were made and that in many cases only a portion or a summary was transcribed. As far as I have seen, no contemporary- not the workers who transcribed the ORs, not their management, not the Government Printing Office- was ever accused of intentionally biasing the records.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,259
#78
Why is that?
Why do we not see accounts of blacks/slaves in the ranks of Confederate Official Records? We have a long thread of newspaper accounts, but I have found nothing in the Confederate Official Records of such, throughout the length of the war?
Blacks/slaves were there, but not mentioned on the reports of Confederate Officers, why?
Kevin Dally



It was only after the war, that the incongruity of blacks fighting for southern independence could be ignored.

The Confederate Congress certainly had real trouble with it and could only discuss it openly, when the war was clearly lost.

To admit that the South needed its slaves to fight for their own enslavement, would be to admit, Secession to ensure slavery, had not only been wrong, but, wrongheaded.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,864
#79
Where?

Kevin Dally
If so, please post your evidence.
The published volumes acknowledge that transcription errors were made and that in many cases only a portion or a summary was transcribed. As far as I have seen, no contemporary- not the workers who transcribed the ORs, not their management, not the Government Printing Office- was ever accused of intentionally biasing the records.
I will when I get back on my computer.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,864
#80
If so, please post your evidence.
The published volumes acknowledge that transcription errors were made and that in many cases only a portion or a summary was transcribed. As far as I have seen, no contemporary- not the workers who transcribed the ORs, not their management, not the Government Printing Office- was ever accused of intentionally biasing the records.
Will I guess you answered for me, right?
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top