In other words, Corey, Rob, Andy Hall, Kevin Levin and, presumably, Brooks Devious Simpson, believe only in de jure soldiers -- that is, soldiers on paper that "legalizes" their standing a soldiers. Where as I believe in de facto soldiers -- at least, in so far as recognizing an individual's service to the Confederate cause.
Presumably, because there are papers that identify Louis Napoleon Nelson as a cook, he cannot be honored as a soldier. I think his service to the Confederate military should be acknowledged, and if some folks want to consider it soldierly service, so what? I'm not sure why that sticks in the craw of these Confederacy-hating bloggers. Would that they rooted out error that really matters with the same enthusiasm that they show when trashing Southern heritage....
In any case, perhaps the modern army needs to rethink is Soldier Chefs... and remove from them their "soldier" status, and make them just plain cooks, lest they run afoul of our cooks-can't-be-soldiers bloggers....
Once again you astound me with your historical ineptitude. The modern military can define their cooks/chefs in whatever manner suits them. No one will dispute that. However, you cannot take that same definition and quality of the modern soldier, and apply it to the past. You do slaves like Louis Nelson an incredible disservice by defining them in such a manner. He was a slave. He served in the slave capacity. The rank and file of that era did not see him as a soldier, they saw him as a servant. His pension application reveals as much.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure this post will reinforce the notions you already hold in the echo chamber that is "Southern Heritage." Sadly it is not accurate, mainstream or acceptable historical interpretation.
Still don't get it do you. Cook/Chefs are soldiers by todays definition. In 1860 that definition was different.
ReplyDeleteIt is very simple and it is obvious that you cannot understand that simple fact.
So...cooks back in the confederate army who were black were not soldiers. It does not matter what you post to prove that cooks are soldiers today.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Rudd "free negro"
ReplyDelete5th North Carolina Cavalry
Muster Roll..........Rank.........Remarks
Nov-Dec 1862.........Private.........Cook
Jan-Feb 1863.........Cook............Cook
Mar-Apr 1863.........Cook............Cook
May-Jun 1863.........Private.........Cook
Jul-Aug 1863..........Cook...............
Sep-Oct 1863.........Cook..............................
Nov-Dec 1863.........Private..............................
Jan-Feb 1864.........Private..........Cook
Mar-Apr 1864.........Cook............Enlisted as cook-free negro
Jul-Aug 1864..........Cook............Col'd Cook
Receipt Roll.........................Rank
3rd Qtr, 1864 (July 23).........Private
3rd Qtr, 1864 (Sept 25)........Private
3rd Qtr, 1864 (Sept 25)........Cook
4th Qtr, 1864 (Oct 18)..........Cook
4th Qtr, 1864 (Oct 29).........[not stated]
I'm not the one who does slaves a dishonor -- it's you South-hating bloggers who see them as incapable of love, loyalty and a whole host of human emotions and experiences who dishonors them as something less than human. You have to reduce them to automatons who feel nothing but utter misery, because for folks like you, slaves and their misery are little more than tools for evilizing white Southerners.
ReplyDeleteSouthern heritage is no more a echo chamber than the one you and your cronies bellow in -- the miserable slaves equal evil white Southerners version of "history," which may be "mainstream" and "acceptable" in the insane America we live in, but it is agenda-driven and not accurate.
Satire goes right over your head, doesn't it, Corey? I'm not saying because military cooks today are considered soldiers that it was always so. I'm saying because you AGENDA-DRIVEN South-bashers say it wasn't so back then, it shouldn't be so today. See?
ReplyDeleteI'm quite certain you are determined to not understand, but I will explain again ... I DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY WERE SOLDIERS by your definition, capisce? I think their service should be acknowledged, and if someone wants to see them as soldiers because their actions and deeds were soldier-like, so what?
You can fall on the floor and kick and scream and hold your breath until you turn yankee-blue, but you simply don't have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot believe.
I was going to add a comment to the record of William Rudd...but accidentally hit the post button before doing so.
ReplyDeleteIt's a simple observation-
Cook = Private
Border Ruffian, I see our anti-Confederate commenters are completely ignoring your historical data. The free black William Rudd was a cook and a soldier -- a private, to be exact. The paperwork sez so. They say LouisNelson *couldn't* have been a soldier because he was a cslave, and thus didn't have papers saying he was a soldier.
ReplyDeleteThat the slave Nelson, a cook, did exactly the same thing that the soldier Rudd did is totally immaterial to them. They don't want to acknowledge what he DID. They only want to acknowledge that he didn't have papers saying he was a soldier. THEY are in reality the ones who do slaves like Louis Nelson an incredible disservice by ignoring what they did, and refusing to acknowledge that they DID what soldiers DID...
All these rigid, legalistic bloggers really tip their hands with issues like this. They don't care what HAPPENED. They only care what was WRITTEN DOWN, because what happened is much less useful in demonizing white Confederates than whatever spin they can put on paperwork....