Lack of Confederate OR accounts of blacks in the ranks.

Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,864
#81
Reb The writers of the OR’s say so themselves.

WJC-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.
Then maybe you know what was in the excluded subjects. And the US Army did what they wished in the OR's. Yes, the OR's are biased.
The sign at Port Republic has been removed concerning the Black engineers help Stonewall Jackson's Army to cross the river. That was an important part of history not in the OR's to my knowledge. That is also Black history no longer there.

A word of caution must be made here about the value and limitations of the Official Records. As primary source material, the Official Records are, without question, the most complete and impartial documentation on the American Civil War. They provide a foundation for serious research into virtually any aspect of the war. On the other hand, no study of the American Civil War should rely exclusively on the Official Records. The accounts contained in the OR were not edited for accuracy, and due to space considerations, only excerpts of reports were often included. Researchers should thus verify the information found in these reports with other source material to gain as complete a picture of events as possible.

https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records
 

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

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,061
#82
Will I guess you answered for me, right?
Thanks for your response.
Now that you are back to your computer, please answer the question: what evidence do you have that 'northerners' intentionally conspired to remove references to 'Black Confederates' from the rebel ORs?
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,061
#83
Reb The writers of the OR’s say so themselves.



Then maybe you know what was in the excluded subjects. And the US Army did what they wished in the OR's. Yes, the OR's are biased.
The sign at Port Republic has been removed concerning the Black engineers help Stonewall Jackson's Army to cross the river. That was an important part of history not in the OR's to my knowledge. That is also Black history no longer there.

A word of caution must be made here about the value and limitations of the Official Records. As primary source material, the Official Records are, without question, the most complete and impartial documentation on the American Civil War. They provide a foundation for serious research into virtually any aspect of the war. On the other hand, no study of the American Civil War should rely exclusively on the Official Records. The accounts contained in the OR were not edited for accuracy, and due to space considerations, only excerpts of reports were often included. Researchers should thus verify the information found in these reports with other source material to gain as complete a picture of events as possible.

https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records
Thanks for your response.
This disclaimer simply points out that the ORs- both those written by United States officers and those written by rebel officers- are incomplete and may contain errors in transcription. It is not evidence to support your claim that rebel ORs were intentionally edited to remove any reference to Black Confederate soldiers.
If you have evidence to support your claim, please provide it. Without evidence, the claim is meaningless.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,864
#84
Thanks for your response.
Now that you are back to your computer, please answer the question: what evidence do you have that 'northerners' intentionally conspired to remove references to 'Black Confederates' from the rebel ORs?
Post #81 will explain it to you. I never said anything about a conspiracy. That is your word. They didn't remove anything.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,864
#85
Thanks for your response.
This disclaimer simply points out that the ORs- both those written by United States officers and those written by rebel officers- are incomplete and may contain errors in transcription. It is not evidence to support your claim that rebel ORs were intentionally edited to remove any reference to Black Confederate soldiers.
If you have evidence to support your claim, please provide it. Without evidence, the claim is meaningless.
I never said removed anything. Them's your words. Never said anything about Black soldiers. What else do you think I said which I didn't?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#86
The military left out the confederate black soldiers when they wrote the OR’s into books.
It was civilians that compiled the ORs. It appears your opinion/conspiracy needs a bit of work.

I'm addition the publication Confederate Veteran omits armed black confederates. Did Union officers edit the CV
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,785
Location
Texas
#87
.
The sign at Port Republic has been removed concerning the Black engineers help Stonewall Jackson's Army to cross the river. That was an important part of history not in the OR's to my knowledge. That is also Black history no longer there.
.
So, how did these "blacks" become "engineers" in the slave south?

"A word of caution must be made here about the value and limitations of the Official Records. As primary source material, the Official Records are, without question, the most complete and impartial documentation on the American Civil War. They provide a foundation for serious research into virtually any aspect of the war. On the other hand, no study of the American Civil War should rely exclusively on the Official Records. The accounts contained in the OR were not edited for accuracy, and due to space considerations, only excerpts of reports were often included. Researchers should thus verify the information found in these reports with other source material to gain as complete a picture of events as possible.
So, what then did the Confederate Officers themselves leave out?":smile coffee:

Kevin Dally
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
#88
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...
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.
RE: That is why it is quietly done in the OR's.

I'm not sure what this means, and I don't want to misinterpret. What was "quietly done" in the ORs?

- Alan
 

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
1,972
Location
Jupiter, FL
#89
I suspect that such 'creative enlistments' might also be discovered from coastal Virginia (where a sizable Native American population still thrives) and central Florida as well
While there was some intermarriage between whites and Seminoles (Osceola was the product of one), this seems pretty rare. Especially by 1860 the Seminoles were either in Oklahoma reservations or avoiding whites entirely in the Everglades. I strongly suspect the number of mixed white-Seminole Floridians in the 1860s living as whites was nearly zero.

Again you have no proof, only conspiracy theories, that some how the North decided what was in the OR's, and what wasn't.
Any conspiracy theory about OR manipulation has at least two problems:

1. Who was so motivated at that time to make the nefarious edits? The ORs were published in the late 1800s, at a time when white Northern interest in racial issues was waning.

2. Why did no former CSA officers, some of whom were still alive at this point, notice the edits and raise a fuss?

3. Why did none of the former CSA soldiers and officers bring up the subject of Black Confederate soldiers in their memoirs? Manipulation of the ORs should stand out because they contrast with recollections of others involved, when one talks about something while the other never does.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#90
Reb The writers of the OR’s say so themselves.



Then maybe you know what was in the excluded subjects. And the US Army did what they wished in the OR's. Yes, the OR's are biased.
The sign at Port Republic has been removed concerning the Black engineers help Stonewall Jackson's Army to cross the river. That was an important part of history not in the OR's to my knowledge. That is also Black history no longer there.

A word of caution must be made here about the value and limitations of the Official Records. As primary source material, the Official Records are, without question, the most complete and impartial documentation on the American Civil War. They provide a foundation for serious research into virtually any aspect of the war. On the other hand, no study of the American Civil War should rely exclusively on the Official Records. The accounts contained in the OR were not edited for accuracy, and due to space considerations, only excerpts of reports were often included. Researchers should thus verify the information found in these reports with other source material to gain as complete a picture of events as possible.

https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records
This refutes your claim of a conspiracy. No historian should rely on any primary source exclusively.

A word of caution must be made here about the value and limitations of the Official Records. As primary source material, the Official Records are, without question, the most complete and impartial documentation on the American Civil War. They provide a foundation for serious research into virtually any aspect of the war. On the other hand, no study of the American Civil War should rely exclusively on the Official Records. The accounts contained in the OR were not edited for accuracy, and due to space considerations, only excerpts of reports were often included. Researchers should thus verify the information found in these reports with other source material to gain as complete a picture of events as possible.​
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#91
While there was some intermarriage between whites and Seminoles (Osceola was the product of one), this seems pretty rare. Especially by 1860 the Seminoles were either in Oklahoma reservations or avoiding whites entirely in the Everglades. I strongly suspect the number of mixed white-Seminole Floridians in the 1860s living as whites was nearly zero.



Any conspiracy theory about OR manipulation has at least two problems:

1. Who was so motivated at that time to make the nefarious edits? The ORs were published in the late 1800s, at a time when white Northern interest in racial issues was waning.

2. Why did no former CSA officers, some of whom were still alive at this point, notice the edits and raise a fuss?

3. Why did none of the former CSA soldiers and officers bring up the subject in their memoirs? Manipulation of the ORs should stand out because they contrast with recollections of others involved.
Then there is the Confederate Veteran Magazine, published by the Confederates veterans.
 



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