I nor the other blogger* claim no more authority than you…you run a blog about the south…what authority do you have? You and yours have repeatedly shown that you do not have a grasp of the original source material that you present.
Nope. We haven't shown that. You're expressing an opinion, that's all. We show that we have a grasp of the original source material that's at least as strong as yours.
However, the other blogger* and I have history degrees which is the be-all-to-end-all on the situation, but it does help us when we are working with source materails…we have a background understanding of how to work with those items.
Your degree didn't help much with your spelling and grammar, though -- so why should I believe it gives you some kind of edge understanding history or anything else? Having a degree doesn't automatically give you a "background understanding" of anything. It depends on how well your were taught, how well you learned, and whether you were learning for the sake of knowledge, or to promote your pre-existing agenda.
Your problem is that you want to define any black person who supported the war effort of the south to be labeled a black confederate and even black confederate soldier.
That is not correct. http://one80dts.blogspot.com/2011/06/black-confederates-controversy.html Besides, it's not a matter of what I want, anyway, but a matter of what is/was. The people of the Confederacy were Confederates. If they were black, that made them black Confederates. YOU are the one trying to equate "black Confederate" with "soldier" -- not I, so don't try to palm your misconception off on me, buster.
Moreover, many heritage defenders who make claims of black Confederate soldiers, are using neither the dictionary definition of "soldier" nor the legal or political or military definition -- they're using the organic definition or the reality-based definition -- i.e., did the black Confederate pick up a gun in a battle and shoot at Yankees? Then that makes him a soldier to those folks -- in the sense that a soldier is as a soldier does.
The problem is … is there is no strong evidence that those who are claimed by you to be black confederates or black confederate soldiers are soldiers.
That may be a problem for you. It's not for me. Besides, where do you imagine I have made such a claim? I'd like chapter and verse, please. I've already 'splained it and 'splained it and posted a link to my position on this subject; so where are you getting this misinformation? Do tell. It might give some insight in how you traverse convolutions to arrive at the conclusions you arrive at.
Do I deny that tens of thousands of blacks were in a support role for the confederacy…no.
Now, why don't you tell me why I should care what you don't deny?
Do I deny that a very small number of blacks fought…no. However I will not and the historical data does not support the contention that tens of thousands of blacks fought as actual soldiers.
I don't contend that, either, so what are you bitching at me for? The ones who fought, however many there were, probably fought because they were at a place where circumstance -- i.e, marauding yankees shooting at them -- demanded it. I recognize that as soldierly conduct. Because this fellow wasn't on some muster roll somewhere, you refuse to see that as soldierly conduct. What? Certain conduct is what it is, only if something is written down on a piece of paper somewhere? You self-styled academics are so trussed up in paper that you're smothered by it, blinded by it, so you can't see the reality of the world and human nature and the human experience going on all around you.
You calling them black confederates denotes soldiers and loyalty.
No, you INFER that's what it denotes. That isn't necessarily what I'm implying, so don't put your words in other people's mouths and then condemn them with your own misunderstanding. If you could learn not to judge people, their beliefs, and what they say by your own misperceptions, you'd be waaaay ahead. I don't denote anything by it. I'm saying what was. They were residents of the Confederacy -- that made them Confederates, just like blacks, slave and free in the USA, were Americans. Voila -- black Americans, black Confederates.
Despite what you think, we just simply do not have the documentation to provide evidence of loyalty.
Well, you don't know what I think. You only prejudge what I think. However, if the documentation cannot provide evidence of loyalty, neither can it provide evidence of an absense of loyalty, can it? Thus, the documentation is neutral -- and irrelevant.
I too and saying that those who served should be acknowledged…but for what they were…and that was that the lions share of those you call black confederates were really slaves or free blacks that felt that any action in support of the south would lead to greater freedoms for themselves.
You know how they felt? You demand "written proof" from others, but you turn around and imply that you know how they felt? How? Do you hold seances? Do you put your hands on the "documentation" and the knowledge just ... sort of ... flows up your arms and into your head? I simply recognize what they did. You're telling me you know how thousands of people who lived a century and a half ago felt? This is one of the most ludicrous claims you've ever made.
Besides, being a slave, and being a black Confederate were not mutually exclusive, any more than being a slave and being a black American were mutually exclusive.
The only issue we have is how those men are acknowledged…and that needs to be done in a historically correct way. Calling a black slave who served his master during the war a black confederate will sound to a lay person on the War of the Rebellion as if blacks served as soldiers willingly and that the south openly enlisted blacks as soldiers and we….despite what you say…know that is not true.
You are once again doing the thinking for people you don't know, haven't met, never will know. You don't know that's what they'd think. Not everyone, lay person or not, has your mental limitations, Corey (limited to fit into your preexisting agenda). Frankly, I don't know how many "lay persons" would care one way or another. However, they are perfectly free to hear both sides of the issue and make up their minds about it. YOU would deny them that by shutting down the voices of those you disagree with, claiming that only YOUR way is the "historically correct" way.
Besides, when you show the same zeal for "historical correctness" regarding the Union's treachery, brutality and betrayal of the Founders, maybe we can revisit this.
As for the the example you refer to a couple of things. 1)If the writer is refering to new found information they need to tell the reader what that information is and where it comes from…Historical Honesty. 2)As for Kevin’s right to call anyone out I have this to say. Kevin is a published author, his first book is at the publishers and he has had numerous article published in journals and magazines about the War of the Rebellion. He is also currently under contract to write a book about black confederates and is in the research stage of the process. Therefore I would take his comments in higher esteem than say someone who writes southern romance novels!!
You expect me to be impressed? I'm not as gullible as you are. Levin is a published propagandist. I freely acknowledge my novels are fiction, and that they're written to an agenda. I say so right on my author website. http://conniechastain.com/bio.html You think Levin is candid enough to admit his writing is propaganda designed to push his pre-existing agenda? Ha!
Can't wait to see his book about "black confederates," which you and he say didn't exist. What's it gonna be, a back and front cover with nothing in between? LOL!
So are you saying that southern heritage is not synonymous with history.
Well, it's not me saying it, Corey. It's the very definition of the words themselves. Why don't you look and see? From dictionary.com:
his·to·ry [his-tuh-ree, his-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1. the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.
2. a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient.
3. the aggregate of past events.
4. the record of past events and times, especially in connection with the human race.
5. a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events: a ship with a history.
her·it·age [her-i-tij] Show IPA
1. something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth; an inherited lot or portion: a heritage of poverty and suffering; a national heritage of honor, pride, and courage.
2. something reserved for one: the heritage of the righteous.
a. something that has been or may be inherited by legal descent or succession.
b. any property, especially land, that devolves by right of inheritance.
Is the distinction too subtle for you? Perhaps I need to spell it out. Our history is PART of our heritage in that it has been handed down to us. It is a part, a large part, of what we as Southerners have inherited. But it is not the WHOLE of our inheritance. Our region -- the very land itself, the mountains,, the plains, the rivers and bays, the flora and fauna -- our culture, our food, our kinfolk, our music, our language and much, much more. That's heritage. And while the SHPG concentrates mostly on Confederate history (primarily because it is under concerted attack, and has been for over a decade, and the attack will get worse now because of he sesquicentennial) that is not all we post about.
From what I have read on pages like Facebook’s Southern Heritage Preservation Group or Virginia War Between the States Sesquicentennial you are very correct…history and heritage are in no way connected or your’e not connecting them.
Sigh. Certainly they're connected. They're just not the same thing. How difficult a concept is that to comprehend? That two things which are not the same thing are nevertheless connected?
As for being drawn to your type…I suppose I am**…I won’t speak for others. You provide a comic relief!
Nope, that doesn't get it. If all I provided was comic relief, you wouldn't have responded here with such ernestness and gravity. LOL!
The difference between you and me, as bloggers, Corey, is that you're a censor. You would silence those you disagree with if you could, or make what they say conform to what you believe. I, on the other hand, don't seek to silence anybody. I just point out how wrong you are.
*The "other blogger" being Kevin Levin, owner of an anti-Southern, authoritarian, granite-minded blog called Civil War Memory (a virtually limitless subject matter that allows him to pontificate on anything and say it is "connected" to the Civil War because it's really about how the war is remembered, not about the war itself....) Anyhow, this fellow is a thin-skinned yankee teacher who came South to "educate" the poor, benighted chirren of scum-sucking, racist hick Southerners, and teach them about the evil reality of themselves and their kin, region, history, heritage, culture.... and who now -- praise be -- has relocated to Boston. I can't think of a better place for him. (Yes. This is my opinion, developed from reading Levin's blog and my personal experience with his childish whims and tantrums .)
**You can see how long Cory has been drawn to us by reading these columns from my original 180 DTS e-zine. They date from 2000 or so. About the only thing I got wrong was my caricature of Billy as a big, burly, Bluto-type of guy.... Talk about comic relief....