It’s mystifying to me why you folks get so bent out of shape over such as this. “He was a slave, not a soldier” you all insist. So? I don’t care what he was called. It seems clear to me that what’s being honored is his service to the Confederate Army, regardless of what status he held while said service was rendered.Levin replied to me:
Confederates — and you Confederacy bashers — understood/understand the differences between a slave and a soldier? I can, too. But what I can also do, that you folks seem unwilling or incapable of doing, is to discern service to the Army, and to the Confederacy, regardless of whether it was done by a soldier or a slave.
I don’t care what he was called.
Yes, we know you don’t care about getting the history right.And James Epperson replied to me:
But what I can also do, that you folks seem unwilling or incapable of doing, is to discern service to the Army, and to the Confederacy, regardless of whether it was done by a soldier or a slave.
Stover didn’t serve the Confederacy, he served his master. This is what happens when you don’t care about getting the history right. My advice is to stick with making book trailers.
So, Ms. Chastain would have no problem if the Japanese erected a monument to honor the British and Australian POWs who “served” the Empire by building the Rangoon railway? The point that she appears to miss is that Robert Stover was *compelled* to work for the Confederate Army by virtue of his being a slave.And Levin commented to Epperson:
This is a distinction that Connie will never acknowledge, though I find it hard to believe that she doesn’t understand it. The problem is that she views everything through the lens of an assault on Confederate heritage/history. It’s a Holy War. :-)I responded, but of course, Levin childishly refused to post my response, so here 'tis:
Not caring what one who served was called is not the same thing as not caring about accurate history. By serving his master, who was, after all, serving the Confederacy, Stover served the Confederacy. BTW, I don't take advice from you.Levin knows what I said here is true; that's one reason why he didn't post it. But there's another reason, as well. He will allow a post from a critic, just so he can get his digs in with his reply. But when a critic respond to his insults and misstatements, he refuses to let the second reply through.
The situation of the POWs you mention, Mr. Epperson, is not comparable to Stover's situation. Yes, some slaves were compelled but being a slave doesn't automatically mean serving is against one's will. People who are drafted into the army in my generation's war, Vietnam, were compelled, too. Does that mean their service is worthless and should not be acknowledged and honored?
From the slave narrative of James Gill:"Us was Confedrits all de while, leastwise I means my mammy an’ my pappy and me an’ all de res’ of de chillun ’cause ole mars was and Mars Jeff would er fit ’em too and me wid him iffen we had been ole enough."From the slave narrative of Charlie Aarons:When the Master's son John Harris went to war, Charlie went with him as his body guard, and when asked what his duties were, he replied:The problem with you anti-Confederates is your de-humanizing slaves. Considering how you write about them, one has to assume you think being in slavery removed from slaves all their human characteristics except misery. This is necessary because you all seem to think that white evil exists in exact inverse proportion to slave misery, so if your purpose is to evilize white Southerners, the best way to do it is to showcase slave misery.
"I looked after Marster John, tended the horses and the tents. I recalls well, Madam, the siege of Vicksburg."
The writer then asked him if he wasn't afraid of the shot and shell all around him.
"No, Madam," he replied, "I kept way in the back where the camp was, for I didn't like to feel the earth trembling 'neath my feet, but you see, Madam, I loved young Marster John, and he loved me, and I just had to watch over that boy, and he came through all right."
Levin is also committed to bashing Southern heritage and its supporters. Hence, the "intellectually challenged" reference in his subject. I've blogged numerous times about the flogger love of denigrating the intelligence of people they don't like -- people who don't see eye to eye with them about history. Here are just a couple of posts about it:
What's Behind Flogger Name-calling
I Told You So
All the floggers exhibit this insufferable need to denigrate the intelligence of those they disagree with, at one time or another, to one degree or another -- especially Southern heritage folks. You have to wonder, if they're certain of their stances and arguments, why is it necessary to denigrate the intelligence of those who disagree with them (not to mention censor their comments)? Is it really a lack of confidence in their own beliefs? Or is it simply a character flaw, a need to wield the put-down to stroke their own egos?
Levin-
ReplyDelete"...you don’t care about getting the history right."
Get the history right??
These same folk will tell you that the United States Colored Troops were all volunteers - all served willingly.
But the actual record shows something different.
They know it...but the myth fits their agenda.
seems yankeedom did a right smart share of "compelling" --
ReplyDeletePOPE'S PLANTATION, Saint Helena Island, May 13, 1862.
Major-General HUNTER,
Commanding Department of the South:
GENERAL: It seems important to advise you of the scenes transpirating yesterday in the execution of your order for the collection and transportation of the able-bodied colored men form the islands to Hilton Head. The colored people became suspicious of the presence of the companies of soldiers detailed for the service, who were marching through the islands during the night. Some thought the rebels were coming and stood guard at the creeks. The next morning (yesterday) they went to the fields, some, however, seeking the woods. They were taken from fields without being allowed to go to their houses even to get a jacket, this, however, in some cases, being gone for by the wife. The inevitableness of the order made many resigned, but there was sadness in all. As those on this plantation were called in form the fields, the soldiers, under orders, and while on the steps of my headquarters, loaded their guns, so that the negroes might see what would take place in case they attempted to get away. This was done in the presence of the ladies here. Wives and children embraced the husband and father thus taken away, they knew not where, and whom, as they said, they should never see again. On some plantations the wailing and screaming were loud and the women threw themselves in despair on the ground. On some plantations the people took to the woods and were hunted up by the soldiers. The school at Eustis was a scene of confusion, the children crying, and it was found of no use to carry it on. The superintendents aided in the execution of the order with moral influence and physical assistance, some of them walking many miles in the night to guide the soldiers, but they all express great sorrow at what has been done and feel that the hold which they had been slowly and carefully getting on their people has been loosened. They told the negroes that General Hunter was their friend and meant well by the, and his orders must be obeyed, but they disavowed responsibility for the act. The soldiers, it is due to them to say, concerning the summary manner in which they were called upon to act, and the speed required of them, conducted themselves with as little harshness as could
Such was yesterday; and it was a sad day with these simple- hearted and family-loving people, and I doubt if the recruiting service in this country has ever been attended with such scenes before. I pray you for the kindest attentions (and I know you will give them) to those who have gone to Hilton Head, and for the immediate return of all who are not disposed to bear arms, in order that the suspense of those who have gone and of those who have remained may be relieved. I shall go to Hilton Head to- morrow (Wednesday) to visit them.
Your obedient servant,
EDWARD L. PIERCE,
Special Agent Treasury Department.
Seems to be a rather pervasive practice.
DeleteDepartment of the Tennessee (Grant), Department of the Missouri, Department of the South...
But whether volunteer or not - no one is saying they shouldn't be recognized for their service.
"....it is the intention of the Secretary of War that all able-bodied negroes that can be reached shall be taken to fill up the colored regiments.
At the same time it is desirable that we should make a wide distinction between the Southern citizens who have been loyal and those who have not; also a distinction between those who have not been loyal, but now express a voluntary willingness to return to their allegiance and employ their negroes in accordance with existing orders, and those who hold out in their acknowledgment of a Southern Confederacy. I would lay down, then, as a rule, that negroes who have belonged to persons of known loyalty only be recruited as free white persons are; that is, when they come and offer themselves. Of the second class they may be visited by recruiting officers and the option given them to enlist, and the able-bodied negroes of the third class of citizens may be taken possession [of] with or without their own consent.
All negroes who have not been employed in accordance with published orders may be taken to put in the ranks...."
-Major-General U. S. Grant, Department of the Tennessee, August 28, 1863.
Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies ("OR"), Series 3, Volume 3, p.735
*
"...it is found by experience that the the recruiting officers do not even attempt to make any discrimination between the slaves of loyal and those of disloyal men, but go through the country picking up all they can induce to go with them, and in some cases forcing them away..."
-Major-General J.M. Schofield, Department of the Missouri, September 26, 1863
OR, Series 3, Volume 3, p.849
*
"Officers in Command of colored troops are in constant habit of pressing all able-bodied slaves into the military service of the United States."
-Major-General Lovell H. Rousseau, Nashville, TN, January 30, 1864
OR, Series 1, Volume 32, part 2, p.269
*
"All able-bodied colored men between the ages of eighteen and fifty, within the military lines of the Department of the South, who have had an opportunity to enlist voluntarily and refused to do so, shall be drafted into the military service of the United States....
District provost-marshals are hereby directed to cause the arrest of all idle persons, and all persons within the military lines of their respective districts, either white or black, who have not proper and visible means of support, and to turn them over immediately to the general superintendent of volunteer recruiting service or his agents for conscription...."
-Major-General J. G. Foster, Department of the South, August 16, 1864.
OR, Series 3, Volume 4, p.621
BEAUFORT, S. C., December 30, 1864.
ReplyDeleteHonorable EDWIN M. STANTON,
Secretary of War:
.
.
.
The order spread universal confusion and terror. The negroes fled to the woods and swamps, visiting their cabins only by stealth and in darkness. They were hunted to their hiding places by armed parties of their own people, and, if found, compelled to enlist. This conscription order is still in force. Men have been seized and forced to enlist who had large families of young children dependent upon them for support and fine crops of cotton and corn nearly ready for harvest, without an opportunity of making provision for the one or securing the other.
Three boys, one only fourteen years of age, were seized in a field where they were at work and sent to a regiment serving in a distant part of the department without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
A man on his way to enlist as a volunteer was stopped by a recruiting party. He told them where he was going and was passing on when he was again ordered to halt. He did not stop and was shot dead, and was left where he fell. It is supposed the soldiers desired to bring him in and get the bounty offered for bringing in recruits.
Another man who had a wife and family was shot as he was entering a boat to fish, on the pretense that he was a deserter. He fell in the water and was left. His wound, though very severe, was not mortal. An employed in the Quartermaster's Department was taken, and without being allowed to communicate with the quartermaster or settle his accounts or provide for his family, was taken to Hilton Head and enrolled, although he had a certificate of exemption from the military service from a medical officer.
.
.
.
There was a general disposition among the soldiers and civilian speculators here to defraud the negroes in their private traffic, to take the commodities which they offered for sale by force, or to pay for them in worthless money. At one time these practices were so frequent and notorious that the negroes would not bring their produce to market for fear of being plundered. Other occurrences have tended to cool the enthusiasm joy with which the coming of the "Yankees" was welcomed
.
.
.
In the hope that I have been in some degree successful,
I am sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,
R. SAXTON,
Brigadier-General of Volunteers.
HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA,
ReplyDeleteNew Berne, N. C., September 1, 1864.
Major R. S. DAVIS,
Assistant Adjutant-General, Department of Va. and N. C.:
MAJOR: The matter of collecting the colored men for laborers has been one of some difficulty, but I hope to send up a respectable force. The matter has been fairly explained to the contrabands, and they have been treated with the utmost consideration, but they will not go willingly. Now, I take it that state of the country needs their services, and that if they will not go willingly they must be forced to go, and I propose to take all I can find who are in no permanent employment and send them up. I am aware that this may be considered a harsh measure, but at such a time we must not stop at trifles. As long as the general understands my motives I do not care particularly for the complaints of outsiders. I have promised all the contrabands I have seized that their pay shall commence from the day of taking them from here. I hope you will direct the quartermaster so to place them on the rolls. Captain Martin, upon his arrival, will explain more fully the difficulties in the way here.
I am, major, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
I. N. PALMER,
Brigadier-General.
PORT ROYAL, S. C., May 12, 1862.
ReplyDeleteHonorable S. P. CHASE:
DEAR SIR: This has been a sad day on these islands. I do not question the purpose which has caused the disturbance, as in many respects it is praiseworthy; but practical injustice and inhumanity may often consist with a benevolent purpose.
Last evening (Sabbath) I received a messenger from General Stevens bringing an order from General Hunter requiring all able- bodied negroes between eighteen and forty-five to be sent early this morning to Beaufort, and from thence to go at once to Hilton Head, where they were to be armed
.
.
.
I now come to the scenes of to-day, which have been distressing enough to those who witnessed them. Some 500 men were hurried during the day from Ladies and Saint Helena to Beaufort, taken over in flats and then carried to Hilton Head in the MattaNumbers The negroes were sad enough, and those who had charge of them were sadder still. The superintendents assure me they never had such a day before; that they feel unmanned for their duties, and as if their work had been undone. They have industriously, as subordination required, aided the military in the disagreeably affair, disavowing the act. Sometimes whole plantations, learning what was going on, ran off to the woods for refuge. Others, with no means of escape, submitted passively to the inevitable decree.
.
.
.
Yours, truly,
EDWARD L. PIERCE,
Special Agent Treasury Department.
some of those volunteer USCT's --
ReplyDeleteHUNTSVILLE, February 26, 1864
Colonel T. S. BOWERS,
Assistant Adjutant-General:
A major of colored troops is here with his party capturing negroes, with or without their consent. Many persons in this country employed their negroes to make crops; they are being conscripted. Is this right? It will entirely stop the cultivation of farms that were being prepared for crops by loyal men. I desire you to telegraph me instructions in the premises, so that I may interfere in these cases.
JNO. A. LOGAN,
Major-General.
You are spot-on regarding Levin; he is a shameful intellectual coward an egregious hypocrite, and a bald-faced liar. But in order to sustain the ridiculous arguments he makes, he really doesn't have a choice in the matter.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot classless, cowardly and bigoted too Connie.
ReplyDeleteIt would be so delightful to debate Levin in an environment where he did not control the dialogue. He is just so wrong and uniformed on almost everything. But as Connie says, on his blog he allows one, possibly two, contradictory posts, then he starts throwing insults, and when insulted in return, he cuts his advesry off completely. He is a supreme intellectual coward.
ReplyDeleteThis should settle any argument-----
ReplyDeleteTHE PRIVATE SOLDIER.
6. In the fullest sense, any man in the military service who receives pay, whether sworn in or not, is a soldier, because he is subject to military law. Under this general head, laborers, teamsters, sutlers, chaplains, &c. are soldiers. In a more limited sense, a private soldier is a man enlisted in the military service to serve in the cavalry, artillery, or infantry. He is said to be enlisted when he has been examined, his duties of obedience explained to him, and after he has taken the prescribed oath.
General August Kautz's, USA,”Customs of Service, for Non-Commissioned Officers and Soldiers" (1864), page. 11
George Purvis
Negroes In Gray
http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2
PS
I can use any and all references to Negro Confederates that can be found. My email is posted to Negroes in Gray.
Thanks,
George
Those records posted in the comments are fascinating, and I thank you for posting them. Although, I don't think Kevin Levin would deny any of those facts. After all, he wrote about the USCTs killing Confederates outside the Crater (even though it was overshadowed by the larger massacre committed by Confederates inside the Crater).
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that your reply went to the cornfield. I thought you simply chose never to respond to him, and I felt I should say as much on your blog.
I'm of Southern heritage also, but I have to agree with Kevin here. At best, the slaves who went to war served their MASTER. There is little or no evidence that blacks had loyalty to the Confederacy or its cause. Your own posting illustrates this point. " I loved young Marster John, and he loved me, and I just had to watch over that boy." Clearly the slave's loyalty was to John, not the CSA. Just like my great-great-grandfather Samuel and his slave, Jeff.
Kevin and other historians are simply worried that the accounts of loyal black servants will be warped into a false implication that blacks supported the Confederate government. Which leads to the obvious conclusion: "if blacks supported the CS cause, then it couldn't have been about slavery." This narrative would be convenient, and I would love to believe it myself, but it's not historical.
Honoring black Confederates somehow is fine, but I wouldn't do it with Confederate flags. Wreaths, flowers, restored gravestones, historical marker signs .... all of that is fine. But unless we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the individual believe in the Confederate cause and government, we should leave the flags off.
Well, it's all in how you decide to spin it -- or whose spin you choose to side with. I don't have a problem honoring a slave's service to the Confederacy, even if it was "once removed" by service to his master who was serving the Confederacy. The Confederacy benefited, so that service should be honored, IMO.
DeleteHere's a parallel. Everyone, or most everyone, knows the yanks didn't invade the South and fight the war to free slaves. But the end of slavery was one result of the war, so they're credited with that. It wasn't intentional on their part (oh, maybe a few), but that doesn't seem to matter. They are credited with, and honored for, fighting to end slavery.
Similarly, service to the Confederacy may not have been the intent of slaves, but the Confederacy benefited from their service, so they should be credited with, and honored for, their service.
"Kevin and other historians are simply worried that the accounts of loyal black servants will be warped into a false implication that blacks supported the Confederate government."
In my opinion, Kevin and other historians are not worried about that. I think they think their beliefs and opinions about the war should be considered universal and unquestionable truth, and they simply can't stand the idea that someone would see it differently.
"Which leads to the obvious conclusion: 'if blacks supported the CS cause, then it couldn't have been about slavery.'"
See, that's not an obvious conclusion to me. There are any number of ways of looking at it. It would have been possible for a slave to support the Confederate government without approving its policy on slavery. I am adamantly opposed to abortion, which the federal government allows, encourages, accommodates and funds... but that doesn't mean I would support an enemy who invaded and made war on the USA, even if they were officially opposed to abortion, and would outlaw it in the USA if they won..
Then again, it would have been possible for blacks to not support the Confederate government, but to have even less support for the federal government.
It was also possible for slaves to support the Confederate war effort out of loyalty to their master, to their culture, their region/state, without being in support of slavery.
This is what I meant by Levin and his cronies not recognizing the full spectrum of humanity of slaves. They seem to think that the status of "slave" made them incapable of feeling love, loyalty, aspiration, volition, happiness, anger, joy, spirituality -- because the misery of being a slave was all they could feel. I don't agree with that. Not for a minute.
Charlie Aarons, who went to war with his young Marster John, also told the WPA writer, "You know, Madam, I never saw a slave rebuked until I came to Mississippi, and I just couldn't understand at first," but he grinned and said: "Lordy, Madam, some of those niggers were onery (sic), too, and a nigger driver was a driver sure enough."
Do you think Kevin & Co. would admit that a slave could be ornery? That a slave could be a "driver sure enough"? Lest the floggers read this and start frothing at the mouth, this observation is NOT some attempt to justify "rebuking" a slave, only an acknowledgement that misery wasn't the only thing slaves experienced.
These "historians" have created stereotypes into which they pigeonhole people -- blacks, whites, slaves, masters, Confederates, Unionists, Southerners, Northerners, then, now. All slaves were the same. All masters were the same. All were exactly like everyone else in their cubbyhole. That's what they blog; presumably that's what they teach. That's what they think everyone should believe.
Well, not this ol' broad. I know better.
Forester,
DeleteI assume by your comments you did not read or understand my post. It is also apparent you have not visited Negroes In gray website at http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2
where we have posted the names and numbers of some 10,000 negroes that served the Confederacy and this is only scratching the surface.
Now that being said anyone is free to go to this website and prove that any man, woman or child serving in any job or capicity did not serve the Confederacy. Before you undertake this task I suggest you read the above post.
Now i would like you do do one small thing for me, and you can seek Kevins or anyone elses consel, please prove that all Confederate Negroes served only their masters.
Now should we not honor those Negroes who were conscripted by the US and forced into duty with a US flag?
Oh yeah you may just want to check out this website also. You will find the Confederate Battle Falg doesn't carry as much baggage as the United States Flag. http://confederatepows.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?6
George Purvis
Southern Heritage Advancement Preservation and Education
Whether or not blacks supported the Confederacy is irrelevant when considering the cause of the war. Secession, and most certainly not slavery, caused the war. It is positively absurd to suggest that the U.S.A., where slavery was perfectly legal, went to war against the C.SA., where slavery was also perfectly legal, to eradicate slavery. The very idea is asinine. As Abraham Lincoln said, the war was fought over secession, and nothing else.
ReplyDeleteSecession = money.
DeleteSo were are you Forester? Do you not have the backbone to respond to facts? Are to ignorant to learn? You claim to be of Southern heritage yet I notice you areon Levins blog throwing barbs at people of the south. Is that the extent of your knowledge? Wanna try me? We can do it here if Connie will let us or at my place Cold Southern Steel at http://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/
ReplyDeleteEither way it is your choice. Grow a set show up.
George Purvis
I'm here, just busy (8 to 11 hour days in the pharmacy this week because the other tech quit and we've been swamped). I'll read your links when I get a chance.
DeleteAlso, there's a lot I've never read about the Civil War in other states or even other parts of Virginia. As I've said many times on Kevin's page, my study is limited almost exclusively to my hometown of Norfolk, VA and the Tidewater coastline. If you have something convincing, I'll certainly concede the debate. My study is primarily limited to the Norfolk Blues (111th Field Artillery, Richmond Howitzers) and the 55th North Carolina, Company B. Any info relating to these companies would be most welcome.
Also: Southern people threw barbs at each other all the time back in the day. To read what the Norfolk Post, the Norfolk Day Book and the Norfolk-Virginian thought of each other, you would never know they were all Secessionist newspapers. Fierce debate is a Southern tradition (thankfully, dueling pistols are no long employed).
THE PRIVATE SOLDIER.
ReplyDelete6. In the fullest sense, any man in the military service who receives pay, whether sworn in or not, is a soldier, because he is subject to military law. Under this general head, laborers, teamsters, sutlers, chaplains, &c. are soldiers. In a more limited sense, a private soldier is a man enlisted in the military service to serve in the cavalry, artillery, or infantry. He is said to be enlisted when he has been examined, his duties of obedience explained to him, and after he has taken the prescribed oath.
General August Kautz's, USA,”Customs of Service, for Non-Commissioned Officers and Soldiers" (1864), page. 11
Jenny-- Negro Girl-- Received at the Myrtle Street Prison the 13th day of Feb. 1864 from Peter Coring, US officer. Sent forward from Prov. Mar. Genl on the first day of February 1864. By order of Col. Marsh.
Jenny "negro Girl"
Signed William Lonergan--Keeper
(Unfiled Papers and Slips Belonging in Confederate Compiled Service Records)
1st Artillery
Negro --- appears on a report of operations and casualties Fort Sumter, August 23, 1863.
Report date: Ft. Sumter, Aug. 24, 1863.
Remarks: Severely wounded head (Unfiled Papers and Slips Belonging in Confederate Compiled Service Records)
Wilson -- Slave. Appears on a receipt roll for pay dated from 2/1 to 2/29/64
Rate of pay $35. 00, Signed C.I. Colecock,, Grahamville, S. C. (Unfiled Papers and Slips Belonging in Confederate Compiled Service Records)
Prove any of these did not serve. Bring your buddies with you – the more the merrier. Do try to hurry I leave town Tuesday for a week.
*******************************
It isn’t much of a Southerner who spoons with a bunch of bigoted neo- Yankees whose entire agenda is based on lies and twisted facts, whose sole purpose to is to run down the Confederacy and insult those who post actual, historical fact. You say it is ok to throw barbs and have a fierce debate. This comments sure doesn’t look like you were involved in an exchange of fact ---
Forester May 28, 2014
A Holy War in which she makes one attack and runs away. Not a good strategy for victory.
Expect a scathing response of one of her several blogs with no comments.
*****************************
I watched a “Black Confederate” story evolve in my own family, and Kevin’s blogs helped me make sense of it. My grandfather (aged 93) tells of his grandfather Samuel taking a slave named Jeff with him to war. “Uncle” Jeff was something of a family legend in the 1920s/ early ’30s (he lived to 104, his master died at 55). He claimed that when fighting broke out, he grabbed a gun and “got in there with ‘em.” My granddaddy told this story several times in my childhood, and never ONCE called “Uncle Jeff” a Confederate soldier.
**********************************************
I will use this on my website as documentation thank you. Of course you cann deny he was never called a Confederate soldier, would you tell us if he was? Could we possibly believe you? I don't think so.
Of course Levin helped you understand this service that is what he is there for.
You may apologize to Connie now.
I already did apologize to Connie for my remark, scroll up and double-check my first post here. I thought she simply chose not to respond on Kevin's blog. I have no idea what this "one comment a week" thing is about and don't really care.
DeleteI will stand up for Kevin because he's never been anything but respectful to me (and he certainly never invoked childish vulgarities and told me to 'grow a set'). He's been respectful to Betty, who is in the UDC, and various other Southerners who visit his blog for discussion instead of attacking him.
Also, you say you're gonna use my story as documentation on your website, then turn around and say you can't trust my word. That's funny. Because I'm your only source of "documentation" for that account.
Finding documents describing services performed by blacks in the CSA does not change the fact that the CS government disallowed their official service until the very end of the war. There are records of women fighting disguised as men (and women in the Revolution who fought without disguises), but that doesn't change the fact that women weren't allowed in the military until WWI and not allowed in combat until 2014. Before 1865 there was, legally, no such thing as a black Confederate soldier, any more than there was a female Confederate soldier. Period.
Do you have any written account of black soldiers/slaves describing what they fought for? Where are the black fire-eaters? Where is a Southern version of Frederick Douglass to illuminate the black motivations for supporting the Confederacy?
The issue is not whether black people "served" the confederacy nor whether what they did constitutes a subjective definition of "soldier." The heart and soul of this debate is one of honor --- is it right to honor a man for a service he was forced into, when he may have believed in the very opposite?
Look at this classic example. Is this text honest? It implies that a slave, whom virtually nothing is known about, was a willing volunteer in the Confederate Army. Which further implies that he, as a black man, believed in the Confederate cause.
Aaron Perry
1840 – Mar. 14, 1930
Served In The Confederate Army
37TH NC Regt.
1861 – 1865
Now, if some group called the Sons of Nazi Germany wanted to honor my great-Uncle for "serving" Hitler as a POW, I would be VERY angry since I know he hated Hitler. How many "black Confederates" might have felt the same way about the CSA? Without specific knowledge of each individual being "honored," it's wrong to place a flag on their grave that may have been disgusting to them if they knew about it. Kevin's statement:
"As the military extension of a government that was pledged to protect the institution of slavery it seems to me that a more fitting ceremony for the SCV would include an apology rather than an honor that has absolutely no basis in history. After all, if the Confederate army had proven to be successful, Perry would still have been a slave."
-- Kevin Levin, Civil War Memory, 2-16-12
I have little love for the Yankees (especially Sherman) and I have no illusions about the pragmatic nature of their cause. I certainly don't believe it was about freeing the slaves, since .... well, they SAID it wasn't. (Insert that Lincoln quote we've all read). But appropriating black slave "soldiers" smacks of intellectual dishonesty and I can't stand for it. Furthermore, as Connie once said, "blacks are not 'needed' in the Confederate Army to legitimize the South's fight for independence."
As for my Southern heritage, Connie has the perfect quote on that subject.
"I'm not a clone of my ancestors. I am their descendant. I live in a different time. ... my world and times are different even from those of my parents -- with whom I didn't always see eye to eye. I'm certainly not a mental clone of people who lived 150 years ago."
No you didn’t apologize to Connie; you said you were sorry her reply went to the cornfield. That is no sort of apology for the unnecessary comment you made to her on Levin’s blog. I have no idea what you are talking about one comment. –explain.
DeleteAh you want respect? Then give respect. How is this comment showing respect to Connie--Forester May 28, 2014
A Holy War in which she makes one attack and runs away. Not a good strategy for victory.
Expect a scathing response of one of her several blogs with no comments.
The fact is I do not have to show you or Levin respect. If you want respect from me prove me wrong with fact not some agenda driven opinion. Besides what are a few barbs among friends during a fierce debate?
I never said I didn’t trust your word. Point that out. You are the only source I need you aren’t a liar are you? The fact YOU never heard him called a Confederate means nothing. I never have been called a sailor but I served in the US Navy.
Look the fact of the matter we are discussing Negro Confederates, not women, not camels, balloons or submarines. I don’t care what the CSA policy was. Can you prove these people I have listed did not serve?
Oh gee we go to WWII now? Do you have the knowledge to stay on Negroes in the CSA or not? Can you prove me wrong or not that is the only question. The rest of your post is nothing but a smoke and mirrors rant. Bring forth some actual fact.
PS:
In relation to your statement -- Do you have any written account of black soldiers/slaves describing what they fought for? Maybe maybe not. To expect written statements from each and every Negro is just the height of stupidity. That is no argument at all Go to http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2 to find out what I have. Do you or Levin have any describing what each and every Union soldier was fighting for. If you think that is a ridicules question then don’t put it to me. You see I can say the same about the USCT men who were impressed into service.
Forester-
Delete"Where is a Southern version of Frederick Douglass to illuminate the black motivations for supporting the Confederacy?"
Not as well known - but Armand Lanusse comes to mind.
Oh I see, so you stand with a guy like Kevin Levin, a closet bigot who seems to get off on dehumanizing black people past and present who disagree with him and his view with denigrating stereotypes.
DeleteI too try to be respectful to Levin until he showed his true colors. The sort of guy who censored speech he doesn't approve of. The guy who has to plot with other like-minded Tools to make up stories about other people in failed attempts to make them out to be liars.
If that's what you want to stand with and defend...well, more power to you. Hope you're still standing there when the bottom drops out.
You're comments in regards to the validity of Levin's arguments are off base and irrelevant mostly due to your blatant attack on American Veterans, by which I refer to your comment about "Sons of Nazi Germany" which is an insult not only to the SCV, but to the Confederate soldier - men recognized as American Veterans - and their descendants, many of whom are also American veterans who served under the flag of the United States. Since you show so much contempt for veterans, including apparently your own blood ancestor, you sir are not worth the time it would take me to blow away all your factually inaccurate arguments....many of which have already been refuted time and time again.
Contempt for veterans ..... what .... ? I'm sorry, but I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. C.W. Roden, if this is the kind of stuff you posted on Kevin's blog, he saved you some embarrassment in not posting it publicly.
DeleteGeorge Purvis (Cold Southern Steel): I don't need to provide "proof these men didn't serve," because I never denied that they served. Of course they served -- as slaves. I questioned their motivations, and whether they would've agreed with all of the ideological implications of the term "Confederate soldier."
An "honor" is no honor if the person didn't believe in that cause. Without written accounts of motivations, we don't know WHAT these men believed in, thus we should err on the side of caution and not call them Confederate Soldiers. Simple.
The Germany example was NOT smoke and mirrors. I mentioned Nazi Germany because my Uncle was a POW, forced to work, and compensated for his labor by the German government. According to your quote, "any man in the military service who receives pay, whether sworn in or not, is a soldier," therefore, "laborers, teamsters, sutlers, chaplains, &c. are soldiers." So according to this flimsy definition, my Uncle was a German soldier. If you can't see how that's nonsense -- and how it renders your definition of a "soldier" moot, then I'm afraid there is just no hope. Godwin's Law and all, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Nazis ...
I did read some of the documentation on your website, and while it's interesting, there are too many gaps. For example, you have Yankee quotes about the Richmond Howitzers having negro batteries. So why didn't the Norfolk Blues, a united attached to the Howitzers, seem know about them? Why did Norfolk newspapers in 1866 decry the Yankee USCTs as the first and only black soldiers? The Norfolk-Virginian used the phrase "black soldiers" without any context, because Northern was simply assumed. The solders of the Norfolk Blues mocked the USCTs for their performance at the Petersburg Crater. "A good soldier can never be made out of the Negro," wrote one soldier, "And the white officers who commanded them are afraid or ashamed to acknowledge the fact when when captured."
From the diary of Pvt. John Walters, Norfolk Light Artillery, on black soldiers: “This is the second new and novel feature of field warfare that Grant has introduced. What he will try next remains to be seen."
Black soldiers were "new and novel." Had the Richmond Howitzers been as racially integrated as the Union reports claim, the Norfolk Blues and the local news media should have been more aware of it. The sight of black soldiers was enough to spark a racial massacre at the Crater. After the war, the sight of armed blacks parading to celebrate a civil rights bill was enough to start a race riot in Norfolk in 1866. I'm sorry, but there is just a MOUNTAIN of evidence that Virginians were oblivious to the notion of a black Confederate soldier.
There is just SO MUCH evidence, and it's uniform across every major letter and diary that comes out of the South. Frederick Douglass's propaganda speech and some Yankee field reports just don't compare.
Also, the drafting of USCTs is a red herring. Yankee abuses are not in debate here, and I don't doubt that they forced some USCTs to fight. But this is about the CSA, not the USA.
At this point, I will concede the debate, since neither of us has a truly conclusive piece of evidence. The debate over soldiers and slaves is a matter of interpretation and semantics, and my position stands. Slaves were not "soldiers" unless there is a conclusive written document where the slave explains why he served the CSA.
Forester-
Delete"...the drafting of USCTs is a red herring."
No, Forrester. Levin brought up- "getting the history right." And we showed you a prime example of where that bunch doesn't get the history right.
They don't have a monopoly on truth...maybe half-truth - that's their skill.
Forester ,
DeleteYou still don’t get it do you? I can see you are nothing more than Levin’s echo. You are so closed minded that even though proof is in front of you, you just will not see. In My opinion that is nothing more than willful ignorance.
You cannot prove one way or the other what these men and women believed in; and to be sure it really doesn’t matter. The fact they served is reason enough to honor them. Suppose you tell us what the “ideological implications” of the Confederate soldier were. I would be curious what Levin has taught you.
Your motivation argument is nothing but a smoke screen. You cannot by any fact prove these Negroes did not serve the Confederacy so you ask for something that can’t be found. I know that tactic. Now I have posted 10,000 entries prove any one of them wrong with fact instead being Levin’s bigoted echo.
In regards to your Nazi comment I will not address it here, but when I get back in a week or so I will address it and YOUR examples on Cold Southern Steel. Be ready. Oh and my dad was also a POW.
My website contains what we have found to date. If you notice there are 3 websites which take quite a bit of time building and maintaining. Then there is the time I spend posting ACTUAL history to Cold Southern Steel and time spend fighting lies like Levin, Baker, Simpson, Hall and you try to promote. Because info is not posted simply means it has not been found. Nothing more nothing less. Just like your “Uncle Jeff” who served the Confederacy. If you have anything else to submit, feel free.
While you evidence is nice supporting your argument that there were no Negroes who served in the Confederate army. It is just cherry picked examples at best. I have 10,000 entries of Negroes who are in one fashion or another recognized as have served the Confederacy I have statements from Union army officers, government employees and the common soldier. This proof far outweighs anything you or Levin can come up with. The fact that information is missing is nothing new in researching a Confederate soldier. I have researched the 7th Miss. Inf. Regt., the 9th Miss. Sharpshooters, we have just recently started on the remainder of the glorious “High Pressure Brigade” very few men state their reasons for fighting; very few mention anything than business at home or news about their friends and relatives. Few give detailed accounts of the battles or camps, some mention of Negroes but not many To be sure I am no rookie nor am I ignorant of the communications to and from home. To imply that I am is an insult and it is straying from the fact you have yet to present any fact showing these Negroes did not serve.
A Negro forced away from his home, under armed guard, to serve the Yankees, is not as good as a slave who willingly served the Confederacy. Sorry but you will just have to do better
Drafting of the Negroes in the Union army is relevant. You want statements of motivation from Negros Confederates. How about you provided some statements of motivation from those Negroes taken away from their homes by force by Union soldiers? If you cannot provide this information for the USCT then why should I provide such info for Negro Confederates? Point is stick with the facts at hand. Now again do you have any proof these 10,000 entries in Negros in Gray did not serve?
You concede because you do not have the facts or the resources to prove me wrong. I challenged you, to your credit you did answer, unlike some of your neo-Yankee buddies who lack backbone. The problem is you have been found lacking in knowledge. It could even be said that you are “The Intellectually Challenged” when to issues about the War for Southern Independence.
Bottom line --- I have 10,000 Negro men women and children listed. We as a group have spent a lot of time, money and effort to dig through various records to find these forgotten people. You and Levin have not earned the right to question their service in the slightest manner.
All, I will be out of town for a few days maube up to a week. If Connie doesn't address Foresters Nazi comments and references then I will do so on Cold Southern Steel
DeleteForester be ready.
George Purvis
Southern Heritage Advancemnent Preservation and Education
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
Cold Southern Steel
http://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/
George, I look forward to reading your response. But I want to be clear on one thing here: I wrote that comment in haste. I was NOT saying that the Confederates were Nazis.
DeleteI showed how your definition could hypothetically classify Allied POWs as "German soldiers" (a "reductio ad absurdum" argument), inferring that black slaves aren't "Confederate" in ideology any more than Allied POWs are "Nazi" in ideology.
If you write a blog explaining why the Confederates were not Nazis, than you'll be wasting your time because I already agree that they weren't. Next time, I'll be more careful and observe Godwin's Law.
I don't hate my ancestors or heritage by any means ... I just don't romanticize them either. And from my perspective, this "Black Confederates" mythology is just a flimsy way of romanticizing the CSA and trying to make them look better than they actually were.
Forester,
DeleteI just got back late last night. Rest assured I will address your Nazi comment in the next few days. I will address your uncle’s POW status also even though I know nothing about his service. Before I do that I want you to clarify a couple of things for me. Things you seemed to ignore that have already been posted.
1. What was the “ideological implications” of being a Confederate soldier? What exactly do you refer to?
2. Are you saying a Negro who supported the Confederacy could not be more than a POW? Show you proof. I don’t give a ripping crap about your or Levin’s opinion.
3. You still haven’t brought any real factual proof to the table. Do so, prove me wrong.
“If you write a blog explaining why the Confederates were not Nazis, than you'll be wasting your time because I already agree that they weren't. Next time, I'll be more careful and observe Godwin's Law.”
Frankly I don’t believe you. Do I need to make that clear?
Negro slaves crossing the Union line graduated up to the legal status of "confiscated federal property", and not a human being. Great leap in civil rights there.
ReplyDeleteNeo-yankees and Nazi's http://coldsouthernsteel.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/279/
ReplyDelete