Marker dedicated for black Confederate - VA

[CMWinkler]

Marker dedicated for black Confederate
Published 8:35 pm Saturday, November 12, 2016

More than 100 people of all skin tones gathered Saturday to honor a Confederate veteran who was receiving a headstone for the first time, more than 87 years after his death.

More: http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2016/11/12/marker-dedicated-for-black-confederate/

 

[East Tennessee Roots]

Marker dedicated for black Confederate
Published 8:35 pm Saturday, November 12, 2016

More than 100 people of all skin tones gathered Saturday to honor a Confederate veteran who was receiving a headstone for the first time, more than 87 years after his death.

More: http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2016/11/12/marker-dedicated-for-black-confederate/

Both Anthony and Jason drew pensions for their service. Both were laborers building breastworks and trenches at Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Richmond. Jason states he served with the 41st Virginia Infantry, Neither man was on the muster roll. They both state the served 1862-1865, mentioning a Captain William Jones, a Captain Callaghan, and a Robert Jones.

I located 5 members of the USCT named William Boone. 3 of the men enlisted in Virginia.

 

[Allie]

What is so different about the black confederate soldier, the article asks? Well... Apart from the fact that he was not a soldier, but a laborer with no rank in the Confederate army, who drew a special type of pension reserved for colored servants, since he was not eligible for a standard pension.

In this case at least he was a free man who chose to serve the Confederacy. But he was not a soldier of the Confederacy, because as a black man he was not allowed to be one.

 

[Tin cup]

I always ask: What makes him a Confederate? Did Jeff Davis give him that title? If the Confederacy didn't give him that title of "Confederate"? Why do folk think they have the right to do so now, and for what reason?

Kevin Dally

 

[CMWinkler]

I always ask: What makes him a Confederate? Did Jeff Davis give him that title? If the Confederacy didn't give him that title of "Confederate"? Why do folk think they have the right to do so now, and for what reason?

Kevin Dally

I would say his service did. He certainly didn't serve the Union.

 

[Tin cup]

I would say his service did. He certainly didn't serve the Union.

I'd say his "service" is not the Confederate Government, nor the Confederate rules of enlistment! When are folk going to stop spreading this falacy of "Black Confederates"?

Kevin Dally

 

[CMWinkler]

I'd say his "service" is not the Confederate Government, nor the Confederate rules of enlistment! When are folk going to stop spreading this falacy of "Black Confederates"?

Kevin Dally

Let me get this straight, you would rather this man's service and sacrifice be forgotten simply because you don't like the fact that some refer to him as a Black Confederate? I'm sorry, but I don't understand this position.

 

[Allie]

Let me get this straight, you would rather this man's service and sacrifice be forgotten simply because you don't like the fact that some refer to him as a Black Confederate? I'm sorry, but I don't understand this position.

The problem is that his actual service has been forgotten, because instead of the truth there is a falsehood on his grave. Honoring his service and life means first of all telling the truth about it.

 

[CMWinkler]

The problem is that his actual service has been forgotten, because instead of the truth there is a falsehood on his grave. Honoring his service and life means first of all telling the truth about it.

I'm curious, what falsehood? Having gotten headstones from the VA, one has to document service. Clearly he wasn't enlisted but his service is not in dispute.

 

[Allie]

I'm curious, what falsehood? Having gotten headstones from the VA, one has to document service. Clearly he wasn't enlisted but his service is not in dispute.

The headstone is supposed to represent service as a soldier. They don't give them to civilian cooks and servants of the Union army.

 

[WilliamH]

Did this man serve in the defense of "his" country from what he saw as invaders?

Yes he did.

Did this man serve wearing a uniform and carrying a gun recognized by the government of "his" country as a soldier?

No he did not. The government he served was a racist government that did not recognize even free black men on the same level as it did white men.

Does that make his service less deserving of recognition?

In my opinion, no; "An army marches on its stomach" –Napoleon, meaning that an army cannot fight or function without logistics: carrying food and ammunition, fixing weapons and wagons, digging of fortification, making/repairing bridges and roads, plus countless other things that I cannot think of, all goes into supporting that man (or today women) on the firing line. This is often called the Tooth to Tail ratio of combat positions to non-combat support positions. Even if he was not in uniform firing a gun his direct support of those who were allowed more men to be on the firing line and allowed them to fight more effectively.

If the current government of VA and his dissidents want to recognize his service then I'm all for it. That being said the article is misleading about his status in the army and should include information about the restrictions that the southern government put on the few free black men who wished to support what they saw as their country.

 

[Tin cup]

Did this man serve in the defense of "his" country from what he saw as invaders?

Yes he did.

Did this man serve wearing a uniform and carrying a gun recognized by the government of "his" country as a soldier?

No he did not. The government he served was a racist government that did not recognize even free black men on the same level as it did white men.

Does that make his service less deserving of recognition?

In my opinion, no; "An army marches on its stomach" –Napoleon, meaning that an army cannot fight or function without logistics: carrying food and ammunition, fixing weapons and wagons, digging of fortification, making/repairing bridges and roads, plus countless other things that I cannot think of, all goes into supporting that man (or today women) on the firing line. This is often called the Tooth to Tail ratio of combat positions to non-combat support positions. Even if he was not in uniform firing a gun his direct support of those who were allowed more men to be on the firing line and allowed them to fight more effectively.

If the current government of VA and his dissidents want to recognize his service then I'm all for it. That being said the article is misleading about his status in the army and should include information about the restrictions that the southern government put on the few free black men who wished to support what they saw as their country.

The VA, the stone cutter...WHOEVER...is not the Confederate Government who set the rules as to who was, or wasn't soldiers. Many others give this man a status he didn't have in 1861-65.

Kevin Dally

 

[Tin cup]

I'm curious, what falsehood? Having gotten headstones from the VA, one has to document service. Clearly he wasn't enlisted but his service is not in dispute.

For one thing the Confederacy didn't recognize blacks/slaves as soldiers, the SCV obviously in uniform are dedicating him as they would a "soldier", they are calling him a soldier...again, they are making up history to feed a modern day fallacy.
Recognize his service, but for what he did, and how he fit into the historical record, a slave, or a black in the ranks, not as the soldier they want him to be. People tell me to look at it as they did in 1861-65?
I AM!

Kevin Dally

 

[unionblue]

I would say his service did. He certainly didn't serve the Union.

CMWinkler,

YOU say his service would make this man a 'black Confederate.'

I say that the whites of the time that employed him did not think of him as a Confederate anything. While he did not serve the Union, his service may had been equated to that of a shovel, a pick axe, or a mule hauling dirt from the fortifications he was employed to work on.

That's what I would say made him a non-Confederate.

Plus, as usual, that 'service' is being largely misrepresented by a modern-day agenda.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[The Confederate]

The irony of the SCV and the UDC claiming that Black Confederates existed, when they once wrote an article in the Confederate Veteran upset that Blacks might have served in previous US wars.

 

[CMWinkler]

CMWinkler,

YOU say his service would make this man a 'black Confederate.'

I say that the whites of the time that employed him did not think of him as a Confederate anything. While he did not serve the Union, his service may had been equated to that of a shovel, a pick axe, or a mule hauling dirt from the fortifications he was employed to work on.

That's what I would say made him a non-Confederate.

Plus, as usual, that 'service' is being largely misrepresented by a modern-day agenda.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

You are certainly entitled to that view. I see it differently. I value his true service. To me he's a Confederate.

 

[CMWinkler]

http://article.archive.nytimes.com/...268665&Signature=9wH+bz23hkRZ4ryZEzMSDwljOgA=

 

[The Confederate]

http://article.archive.nytimes.com/1900/06/15/102599742.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJBTN455PTTBQQNRQ&Expires=1479268665&Signature=9wH+bz23hkRZ4ryZEzMSDwljOgA=

A Newspaper is not proof, is there any documents, etc, that you can provide that there were Black Confederates?

 

[WilliamH]

@The Confederate, How do you define a Black Confederate? This gentlemen, a free black man, choose to serve the Confederate army for the duration of the war. Something he did not have to do. He was not recognized by the Confederate government as a soldier and he did not carry a rifle into battle but that does not mean his service was unimportant.

 

[The Confederate]

@The Confederate, How do you define a Black Confederate? This gentlemen, a free black man, choose to serve the Confederate army for the duration of the war. Something he did not have to do. He was not recognized by the Confederate government as a soldier and he did not carry a rifle into battle but that does not mean his service was unimportant.

Any proof he did serve for the duration of the War?