Searching for Black Confederates by Kevin Levin

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
I have seen a couple of lectures by Kevin Levin.

I'm not the academic type I'm better fixing roofs and sticking doors and windows in.

However I like to think I have a certain amount of common sense or some might say.

If a Major General in the CSA army writes a letter with other prominent commanders asking for Slaves to be armed to serve the CSA with the reward being their freedom and gets politely ignored by Richmond in later 1864 I'm pretty sure that not a single slave was on the fighting roles of the CSA army.

That's not to see some people of colour didn't fight for the South but they were never recognized by the southern government or Army.

Just my opinion of course.

I agree with this post. Albeit, I believe there were black Confederates, but I'm skeptical that one was a combat troop. I'm sure there were black Confederates that helped with the war effort, but who in their right mind would have armed slaves? Then again, Confederate apologists claim that slaves loved their status quo and were loyal to their slave masters, but the validity of that theory relies on whether or not they armed slaves. Well, it certainty gives it some credibility. I severely doubt it. I made a parody thread on black Confederates and nobody could produce any evidence that there were blacks in infantry.
 

C.W. Roden

Formerly: SouthernFriedOtaku
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Location
South Carolina, USA, Earth
I don't have a definition other than what I already said. It's a person with a particular bias.

You're not going to have any luck coming with a rigid set of beliefs. Some may believe every word of the Lost Cause, some may not. I believe the UDC still has some sort of "creed" that all the adherents are supposed to believe, but other than that, I don't know that anyone has set a doctrine in stone. If you're looking for details, check the UDC and the SCV. They may have a list of what you should believe.
Any creed by the SCV or UDC would be useless. I need a specific set of guidelines for what my opponents would regard as "pro-Confederate" but I know that they won't be forthcoming for several reasons. The main one being that a specific criteria means being held to that criteria when making a charge, and Black Confederate Deniers don't like to be trapped into narrow defintions -- much like how they use a similar tactic to build their house of cards.

For example:
The Southern Poverty Law Center officially defines a "neo-Confederate" as the following:

"The term neo-Confederacy is used to describe twentieth and twenty-first century revivals of pro-Confederate sentiment in the United States.
Strongly nativist and advocating measures to end immigration, neo-Confederacy claims to pursue Christianity and heritage and other supposedly fundamental values that modern Americans are seen to have abandoned.

Neo-Confederacy also incorporates advocacy of traditional gender roles, is hostile towards democracy, strongly opposes homosexuality, and exhibits an understanding of race that favors segregation and suggests white supremacy.
In many cases, neo-Confederates are openly secessionist.
Neo-Confederacy has applied to groups including the United Daughters of the Confederacy of the 1920s and those resisting racial integration in the 1950s and 1960s.
In its most recent iteration, neo-Confederacy is used by both proponents and critics to describe a belief system that has emerged since the early-1980s in publications like Southern Partisan, Chronicles, and Southern Mercury, and in organizations including the League of the South, the Council of Conservative Citizens and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Overall, it is a reactionary conservative ideology that has made inroads into the Republican Party from the political right, and overlaps with the views of white nationalists and other more radical extremist groups."


Now when I compare my own stated views on the subject of the war, I barely meet even one of these criteria. So that means I'm not a "neo-Confederate" right? You friend Levin would disagree, I'm sure.
But therein lies the rub, who set the standard -- the yard stick -- by which one can formally be defined by that silly term? Some on your side of the isle would argue about half, some more, and some far less.
I believe that before someone can issue the charge, they should be held to a specific standard, otherwise they are engaged in those self-same ad hominem attacks you see to be so fond of pointing out.​
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
A removed plaque from 1959 does not represent any sort of "still have" belief. It's over 60 years old.
The assumptions and allegations of what the UDC, CofC or even the SCV are "supposed to believe", is not the actual reality of those of us that are members in these organizations. The narrative that we are all little old white racist ladies raising little white supremist children that is perpetuated by activists, bloggers and agitators and those that wish us harm is very dangerous to us and our families.
There are quite a few of us here that are members of these organizations and the constant attempt to label us as "adherents" to any creed or belief bias is unwarranted. We are all individuals with individual opinions and studies of the Civil War.
Again, please afford us the respect that you would give to others.
Another poster has asked me what the term "pro-confederate" means. I directed him to the confederate heritage groups. I'm not aware of any disrespect shown toward you. Adherent simply means "someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas." I think the word is appropriate in this context. While there is a variety of personal opinions like you say, there is also a "set of ideas" involved.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Any creed by the SCV or UDC would be useless. I need a specific set of guidelines for what my opponents would regard as "pro-Confederate" but I know that they won't be forthcoming for several reasons. The main one being that a specific criteria means being held to that criteria when making a charge, and Black Confederate Deniers don't like to be trapped into narrow defintions -- much like how they use a similar tactic to build their house of cards.

For example:
The Southern Poverty Law Center officially defines a "neo-Confederate" as the following:

"The term neo-Confederacy is used to describe twentieth and twenty-first century revivals of pro-Confederate sentiment in the United States.
Strongly nativist and advocating measures to end immigration, neo-Confederacy claims to pursue Christianity and heritage and other supposedly fundamental values that modern Americans are seen to have abandoned.

Neo-Confederacy also incorporates advocacy of traditional gender roles, is hostile towards democracy, strongly opposes homosexuality, and exhibits an understanding of race that favors segregation and suggests white supremacy.
In many cases, neo-Confederates are openly secessionist.
Neo-Confederacy has applied to groups including the United Daughters of the Confederacy of the 1920s and those resisting racial integration in the 1950s and 1960s.
In its most recent iteration, neo-Confederacy is used by both proponents and critics to describe a belief system that has emerged since the early-1980s in publications like Southern Partisan, Chronicles, and Southern Mercury, and in organizations including the League of the South, the Council of Conservative Citizens and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Overall, it is a reactionary conservative ideology that has made inroads into the Republican Party from the political right, and overlaps with the views of white nationalists and other more radical extremist groups."


Now when I compare my own stated views on the subject of the war, I barely meet even one of these criteria. So that means I'm not a "neo-Confederate" right? You friend Levin would disagree, I'm sure.
But therein lies the rub, who set the standard -- the yard stick -- by which one can formally be defined by that silly term? Some on your side of the isle would argue about half, some more, and some far less.
I believe that before someone can issue the charge, they should be held to a specific standard, otherwise they are engaged in those self-same ad hominem attacks you see to be so fond of pointing out.​
"Black Confederate Deniers"
"Some on your side of the isle..."

You seem to have a problem with being defined, yet are fine with defining others and putting them into groups. Your "opponents" as you describe them.

Even on this site, there is no one single "Black Confederate Denier" definition. Some "deniers" think the southern heritage people are exaggerating but there were still a few thousand that could be considered as black confederate. Some, like myself, think there were less than one thousand.

You say you need a "specific set of guidelines" as to what constitutes pro-confederate. Then you need to go to the heritage groups, or you need to ask those posters here who are biased towards the confederacy.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
I have seen a couple of lectures by Kevin Levin.

I'm not the academic type I'm better fixing roofs and sticking doors and windows in.

However I like to think I have a certain amount of common sense or some might say.

If a Major General in the CSA army writes a letter with other prominent commanders asking for Slaves to be armed to serve the CSA with the reward being their freedom and gets politely ignored by Richmond in later 1864 I'm pretty sure that not a single slave was on the fighting roles of the CSA army.

That's not to see some people of colour didn't fight for the South but they were never recognized by the southern government or Army.

Just my opinion of course.
The only units of black troops prior to 1865 were militia in the states of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana. Free blacks and slaves (enlisted) had only a scattered presence in the Confederate army - not something that would catch anyone's attention.

Selected:
4th (Murray's) Tennessee Cavalry- 8
25th Tennessee Infantry- 29
27th Tennessee Infantry- 5
28th Tennessee Infantry- 12
29th Tennessee Infantry- 16
50th Tennessee Infantry- 10
18th Battalion Georgia Infantry (3 companies)- 16
Mobile City Troop (2 companies)- 8
Company F, Palmetto Battalion (SC) Artillery- 13
27th South Carolina Infantry- 50

...after awhile that starts to add up.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The only units of black troops prior to 1865 were militia in the states of Alabama, Florida and Louisiana. Free blacks and slaves (enlisted) had only a scattered presence in the Confederate army - not something that would catch anyone's attention.

Selected:
4th (Murray's) Tennessee Cavalry- 8
25th Tennessee Infantry- 29
27th Tennessee Infantry- 5
28th Tennessee Infantry- 12
29th Tennessee Infantry- 16
50th Tennessee Infantry- 10
18th Battalion Georgia Infantry (3 companies)- 16
Mobile City Troop (2 companies)- 8
Company F, Palmetto Battalion (SC) Artillery- 13
27th South Carolina Infantry- 50

...after awhile that starts to add up.
The poster to who you replied specified "fighting roles." Free blacks and slaves in the Confederate army were used in non-combatant roles, such as cooks and musicians.

From what I understand, black militia members were not accepted into confederate service. Is there any record of black militia units actually fighting against Union troops?
 

AshleyMel

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
I am sorry that I have to keep pushing back against this issue. I have had enough encounters on this site and I'm sure the threads can be found where persistent disrespect to the UDC and by default myself and other ladies has been exhibited. The evidence is there, it is a wide spread notion that anyone who is interested in the subject of these men are "pro-Confederate", that the UDC is somehow desecrating graves and perpetuating a "set of ideas" - that we are somehow to be held responsible for all the evils and ills related to the current state of the world today. I was told once, I was fearmongering whenever I spoke about the harassments and abuse the membership UDC endured. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are slandered, doxed, threatened and bullied. The things that are typed and said here and in other places that I know some of our members frequent, have real world consequences. Saying that we have certain biases or sets of belief is labeling all of our members and treating us like we are monolithic. I'm sure there are specific cases that fit your labels but I and many, many others do not.
I am from the south, my mother was white, my father black. I have said time and time again, my interest in these men is to fill in pieces of my family tree.
Like many others in the UDC I come from blended family lines. While white women initially & primarily made up the organization, as the internet has opened a whole new resource to search for family records, more and more women of color are joining the organization - despite what some would have you believe. I'm also researching now to find my Patriot ancestor for membership in the DAR and I have (I think) finally found a solid link to an ancestor in the USCT.
The people and organization that label us as "neo confederates" and the like are trying to enact modern day agendas and political persecutions.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I am sorry that I have to keep pushing back against this issue. I have had enough encounters on this site and I'm sure the threads can be found where persistent disrespect to the UDC and by default myself and other ladies has been exhibited. The evidence is there, it is a wide spread notion that anyone who is interested in the subject of these men are "pro-Confederate", that the UDC is somehow desecrating graves and perpetuating a "set of ideas" - that we are somehow to be held responsible for all the evils and ills related to the current state of the world today. I was told once, I was fearmongering whenever I spoke about the harassments and abuse the membership UDC endured. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are slandered, doxed, threatened and bullied. The things that are typed and said here and in other places that I know some of our members frequent, have real world consequences. Saying that we have certain biases or sets of belief is labeling all of our members and treating us like we are monolithic. I'm sure there are specific cases that fit your labels but I and many, many others do not.
I am from the south, my mother was white, my father black. I have said time and time again, my interest in these men is to fill in pieces of my family tree.
Like many others in the UDC I come from blended family lines. While white women initially & primarily made up the organization, as the internet has opened a whole new resource to search for family records, more and more women of color are joining the organization - despite what some would have you believe. I'm also researching now to find my Patriot ancestor for membership in the DAR and I have (I think) finally found a solid link to an ancestor in the USCT.
The people and organization that label us as "neo confederates' and the like are trying to enact modern day agendas and political persecutions.
I don't think I've ever treated you disrespectfully. And I don't think UDC members should be harassed or abused.

The UDC has a history. Karen Cox wrote a book, Dixie's Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture. There's no way to separate the UDC from the changes going on regarding the public memory of the confederacy. As public perception of the confederacy goes, so goes public perception of the UDC. It's inevitable. I'm sorry if you feel personally attacked by some of these discussions, but that is not intended at all.

 

AshleyMel

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
I'm glad you are against any harassments or abuse of UDC members. Thank you. It is important for that to be expressed in public places.
But I have been personally attacked as have others. Whether that is the intention or not - it is fact - and continuing to draw lines of division against us is causing harm.
Yes, I've read her book. So have lots of ladies in the UDC. I do not personally know her. One only has to look at her twitter to see her stance on things. She has also been subject to hate and I denounce anyone who would express the evil in their heart on to another human being. Period.
Some of us were actually hoping for a fair accounting. There is more that I could say but we are already venturing on the modern issue line and I do not want to shut down the the thread. It is important for their to be clarity and there is a modern agenda driven to harm the UDC today and shame our members for wanting to study and remember our history. This movement will not stop with the UDC.
Ms. Cox has interviews where she has claimed to know what the ladies of the UDC today think and feel. She does not speak for us or represent us. Yes, the UDC has a history. So do many other organizations and groups. I can think of one, that I can not mention here that is particularly heinous but it is celebrated today. It is incorrect and it is wrong to say that the UDC has to always be viewed as the UDC of the past. I was very conscious about my decision to join the organization and as someone who has actually experienced and lived with racial discrimination my whole life I would have never joined if I was not confident in my membership. We have every freedom to exist and thrive and continue to do the good works that we do for our military and veterans. People's obsession with the Daughters who are long dead are only trying to divide and stir up discord. I prefer to live in the present.
We need to respect our differences and come together over this shared history.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
The poster to who you replied specified "fighting roles." Free blacks and slaves in the Confederate army were used in non-combatant roles, such as cooks and musicians.

From what I understand, black militia members were not accepted into confederate service. Is there any record of black militia units actually fighting against Union troops?
"The poster to who you replied specified "fighting roles." Free blacks and slaves in the Confederate army were used in non-combatant roles, such as cooks and musicians."

I and others have found many who were killed, wounded or captured in battle. We've found many with the notation of "picket duty" on the roll. That's a combat role.

"From what I understand, black militia members were not accepted into confederate service."

Which Confederate service? Regular Army? Provisional Army of the Confederate States? Local Defense Troops? Militia called out in an emergency or for a limited period of time (30/60/90 days)?

In 1862, the 9th Brigade Alabama Militia was transferred to Confederate service for 90 days. The Creole Guards (FMC) were part of that brigade.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
"The poster to who you replied specified "fighting roles." Free blacks and slaves in the Confederate army were used in non-combatant roles, such as cooks and musicians."

I and others have found many who were killed, wounded or captured in battle. We've found many with the notation of "picket duty" on the roll. That's a combat role.

"From what I understand, black militia members were not accepted into confederate service."

Which Confederate service? Regular Army? Provisional Army of the Confederate States? Local Defense Troops? Militia called out in an emergency or for a limited period of time (30/60/90 days)?

In 1862, the 9th Brigade Alabama Militia was transferred to Confederate service for 90 days. The Creole Guards (FMC) were in that Brigade.
If a non-combatant is killed during a battle, it doesn't make them a combatant. It makes them collateral damage.

Confederate service, meaning the Confederate military. The other part of the question was whether any black militia unit ever engaged in battle against Union troops.
 
"

Which Confederate service? Regular Army? Provisional Army of the Confederate States? Local Defense Troops? Militia called out in an emergency or for a limited period of time (30/60/90 days)?
Sort of off-topic but when did the "Provincial Army of the Confederate States" shed its "Provincial" title and become the Army of the Confederate States?
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
If a non-combatant is killed during a battle, it doesn't make them a combatant. It makes them collateral damage.

Confederate service, meaning the Confederate military. The other part of the question was whether any black militia unit ever engaged in battle against Union troops.
"If a non-combatant is killed during a battle, it doesn't make them a combatant."

If they are on a casualty list, I count them as a combatant. If there is a notation by their name on the roll such as "loss of bayonet" or "loss of 20 cartridges" I count them as a combatant. If an enlisted Cook or Teamster is issued a musket and ordered to do picket duty, he is a combatant.

"Confederate service, meaning the Confederate military."

You mean all of these, right?-
Regular Army
Provisional Army of the Confederate States
Local Defense Troops
Militia called out in an emergency or for a limited period of time (30/60/90 days)

"The other part of the question was whether any black militia unit ever engaged in battle against Union troops."

I believe some of the Louisiana militia were and maybe the company raised in Pensacola, FL.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
If they are on a casualty list, I count them as a combatant.

You mean all of these, right?-

I believe some of the Louisiana militia were and maybe the company raised in Pensacola, FL.
I understand that you want to maximize the numbers.

I mean actual confederate military.

If you find examples of black militia units fighting against the Union, I think it would be interesting to look into.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Karen Cox wrote a book...
Also in the UNC system. The Hive of Confederate bashing...

1617332960569.png
 
Last edited:

Scott1967

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
You mean all of these, right?-
Regular Army
Provisional Army of the Confederate States
Local Defense Troops
Militia called out in an emergency or for a limited period of time (30/60/90 days)
So who payed their wages Georgia?.

Were they state payed?.

Or were they on the official Confederate Governments payroll?.

I cant get my head round this like I said in a previous post this was serious discussion between Confederate top brass and the Government even Lee got involved , We know that many coloureds were used as manual labour but I have yet to see any account of coloured CSA soldiers standing in line fighting the Union.

If they weren't government endorsed then you could debate they did not exist.
 

C.W. Roden

Formerly: SouthernFriedOtaku
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Location
South Carolina, USA, Earth
You say you need a "specific set of guidelines" as to what constitutes pro-confederate. Then you need to go to the heritage groups, or you need to ask those posters here who are biased towards the confederacy.

I believe there has been a miscommunication here and, as much as I hate to admit it, the fault is probably mine. It has been suggested by someone reading our back and forth here the belief on your part that I'm attempting to trap you into some sort of verbal briar patch. This is obviously not the case -- well obvious to me anyhow, but there lies the problem.

Yes, I do require a specific set of guidelines in order to understand what you define as "pro-confederate" in particular. In my world (ie being an Aspie) clarification of thought and specific meaning of words are important to me. Pro-Confederate is far too general a term for me to take in and of itself.

You suggest going to the heritage groups, but don't tell me which ones. There is as diverse a spectrum for them as well, and at any rate I know where I personal rate among those folks. The more hard core ones (people who actually call themselves "Confederates") would either call me "reconstructed" in the mildest case. Folks who are members of the SCV, UDC, CotC, and MOSB would likely consider me moderate or a "granny" in terms of how I view the war in particular. In reality the only common threads I have with any of them are my views on how the Confederate soldier should be remembered as a American veteran, the preservation of historical markers, battlefields, and the defense of Confederate symbols and their intrinsic meaning.

So I fear your suggestion to "go to the heritage groups" would be unhelpful in this case.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I believe there has been a miscommunication here and, as much as I hate to admit it, the fault is probably mine. It has been suggested by someone reading our back and forth here the belief on your part that I'm attempting to trap you into some sort of verbal briar patch. This is obviously not the case -- well obvious to me anyhow, but there lies the problem.

Yes, I do require a specific set of guidelines in order to understand what you define as "pro-confederate" in particular. In my world (ie being an Aspie) clarification of thought and specific meaning of words are important to me. Pro-Confederate is far too general a term for me to take in and of itself.

You suggest going to the heritage groups, but don't tell me which ones. There is as diverse a spectrum for them as well, and at any rate I know where I personal rate among those folks. The more hard core ones (people who actually call themselves "Confederates") would either call me "reconstructed" in the mildest case. Folks who are members of the SCV, UDC, CotC, and MOSB would likely consider me moderate or a "granny" in terms of how I view the war in particular. In reality the only common threads I have with any of them are my views on how the Confederate soldier should be remembered as a American veteran, the preservation of historical markers, battlefields, and the defense of Confederate symbols and their intrinsic meaning.

So I fear your suggestion to "go to the heritage groups" would be unhelpful in this case.
The problem is that you're trying to nail down a rigid doctrine, rather than accepting that it's a generalized bias. AshleyMel has already said that there is a variety of opinions.

If someone asked me to define the specific guidelines as to what a Packer fan has to believe, I couldn't do that either... If I said you have believe that "Bart Starr was the greatest Packer QB of all time," some would agree and some would laugh and some would get angry.

Pro-Confederate means a bias towards the the confederate side of the Civil War. It can mean believing the war was not about slavery. It can mean believing Lincoln tricked the confederates into shooting first. It can mean believing that all slaves were happy and loyal. And it can mean none of these, but some completely different pro-confederate things.

Pro-Confederate bias is a generalized bias that encompasses any opinions which are slanted towards the Confederacy. That's the best I can do to define it.
 
Last edited:
Top