It is interesting that you comment on the Irish being impressed into the Union army. Let us not forget that the south began the draft about a year before the North and that many a good southerner who claimed he fought with Bobby Lee after the war was most likely a conscript....a draftee!Corey
The comment was a push back at those who say that all blacks who served as slaves should never be classified and/or honored as soldiers.
Well, should we honor someone who was forced to serve as a slave in an army the was set out to keep them enslaved? I posted the appearence of another black confederate/confederate slave on my site and also linked to another such post on Robert Moore's site as well.Kevin Levin has documented proof that the so called black confederate so recently honored by the SCV...Weary Clyburn...was not a confederate soldier according to the pension records...why?...because he was a slave!Black Confederates are a myth...they are an attempt by the SCV to legitimize the lost cause.Corey
Should we honor those who were drafted into service against their will (Vietnam for example)? You answer your own question.Regarding black Confederates, I've had that debate here before and participated on Levin's blog as well. I'm not going to revisit that every other week as KL does. We'll agree to disagree.
Who new bigotry could be so tasty...
You miss the point. We should not honor black confederate soldiers if they were not really soldiers. They should be honored as what they were....Confederate slaves, who did deeds of importance...even for the confederacy.But, for histories sake, let us not call them soldiers if they were not soldiers.
You're a good student of Levin. So Vietnam vets who were drafted against their will should not be honored as soldiers? That's ridiculous. You must be consistent for this to be a logical argument. Moreover, your last comment about the SCV assumes motives. I could respond that your refusal to acknowledge the service of blacks who served the Confederacy is due to your anti-Southern bias. But that would be assuming motives, so I won't.I said I wasn't going to debate this again. Keep further comments relative to the subject of the post please.Best,RGW
Richard,We can agree, disagree, agree to disagree, vehemently disagree, get in heated exchanges, and even refuse to comment on each others blog because we find the content on the other blog outrageous, but to allow a comment to go through that suggest that either myself or Cory are bigots (and that is unmistakeable considering the post and the comments) is unacceptable and borders on slander. To me, it's about as bad as calling someone a racist. I know darn well that I'm not a bigot and refuse to address the rude comment with an explanation of why I am not. So, if you actually want discourse about CW era history, it's one thing, but this is simply... unSouthern... period. Reconsider your own posts about Lee and the emulate the example.Robert @ Cenantua's Blog
Robert:You can't possibly be serious. If you're referring to Mr. Sims' comment, he's referring to the subject of the videos posted here (did you even watch them?). In the videos, the Rutgers students are illustrating the absurdity of PC thought on college campuses by using a box of Lucky Charms. To wit: Lucky Charms' leprechaun logo is "bigoted" against the Irish and Lucky Charms are "tasty." You need to loosen up a little my friend.But regarding your indignation about accusations of bigotry and the like, I've never seen you get so wound up about the almost daily tripe of Levin's blog comparing Confederate history to the holocaust, suggesting those who celebrate Southern history as it relates to the Confederacy as bigots, racists, etc, etc, etc. Why don't you ever speak out with such passion when those charges and comments are thrown about there?No one called you or Cory a bigot. You rushed to judgment. If you'd watched the videos and then read the posts in context without assumptions in your mind, you could not possibly have come to the conclusion that anyone was calling anyone else a bigot.Best,RGW
Richard,While the post was one thing, I read it that the flow of comments took a turn in focus, beginning with the “push back” that you started after the first comment. Dropped in the middle of the exchange, I believed the bigotry comment could be interpreted as part of the exchange regarding denial of recognition of all blacks as in service roles with the Confederate army as “soldiers” with the Confederate army. Perhaps I should have asked for clarification, but again, in my reading the flow of comments, I took it as something else. If I have misinterpreted, my apologies to Mr. Sims.Since you ask about my lack of comments in some posts in Kevin’s blog, perhaps you should apply the same thought to my lack of comments here. I simply choose not to partake in some discussions, albeit the regular dose of anti-academia here discourages me far more often from bothering to make comments here. Better to take meaning from what I say regarding my positions on various topics, rather than to take meaning, including agreement or disagreement on a matter, from what I don’t say, here or there.Best,Robert
I am quite aware that Levin and others have made a major effort to debunk the idea of black Confederate soldiers but the evidence that some black men were soldiers for the South is in the historical record. The record of the defense forces of Fort Fisher record many soldiers by name and race and several of the artillerymen in the fort are identified as "Negro." Polk Arnold of Tennessee died in combat at Harrisburg, MS, on July 17,1864. His widow drew a pension and she and her deceased husband are listed on the pension application as "Negro." Arnold was a member of the Bodyguard Company of N.B. Forrest. As to the motives of the SCV, I wonder where the commentor got his information? Attributing motives without knowledge is a tactic usually associated with a prejudiced mind.
Michael:I would agree with some of the critics that the actual number of black Confederates has been exaggerated. I prefer to focus on some of the individuals stories of these men, which is what I've done. Thanks for your input and the useful information you provided.
Robert:Suggesting the "bigotry comment" could be interpreted in any other way than which it was intended defies logic and common sense. How do you link "tasty" with anything other than the cereal in the video? Good Lord.Moreover, where do you come off suggesting the comment was directed at you personally? At that point in the string of comments, you had not even posted anything."Since you ask about my lack of comments in some posts in Kevin’s blog"I was much more specific. You comment often there, but are strangely silent when accusations of bigotry and racism are so freely tossed around. How come? Are you afraid to challenge Levin or those that post there for some reason? You chimed in here out of no where (and are more than welcome to continue), but you give posts and comments on Levin's blog which are much more direct and unambiguous (unlike the false charge here) a pass. Why?
Conspicuously absent from discussions of "Confederate slaves" serving the C.S. army is any talk of "Union slaves." The U.S. army used slaves as involuntary laborers also. Fort Negley in Nashville, TN, was built entirely with the labor of slaves confiscated from Confederate owners (Union slave owners were allowed to keep their slaves). This labor force was not paid but was given food, clothing, & shelter--the same recompense they received from their Confederate masters. This labor force was involuntary and was not allowed to return to the farms and plantations where they had been seized and where they had been forced to leave their families.The Provost Marshal Records, U.S. Army, contains a large collection of material concerning these slaves, including petitions (all refused) requesting to be allowed to return to their Confederate masters so they could grow food for the support of their wives and children.The Provost Marshal Records also reveal that pro-Union slave owners were allowed to send males of military age to Union recruiting officers and to be reimbursed for the slaves when the men were forceably enlisted in the U.S. army.I would also point out that the book "Retreat From Gettysburg" contains a very good account of the service rendered by free people of color, as well as by slaves, who worked as hospital stewards following the return of the ANVa from Pennsylvania.
I wish to add to my list of Black Confederates three brothers--Andrew, Nathan, and Samuel Chavers, free men of color, who served in the 17th Tennessee Infantry. Samuel died of fever in a hospital at Knoxville on Dec. 4, 1861. His remaining brothers fought at Fishing Creek, Shiloh, Perryville, and Murfreesboro. They were discharged for reasons of health in the Spring of 1863.These men were from Franklin County, Tennessee, and served in an integrated unit. During their military careers they never encountered black soldiers in the U.S. army because none served in any of the western U.S. armies against which theChavers brothers fought.
You will see very little discussion of "Union slaves" as it does not fit the narrative, i.e. "South bad, North good." Oh yes, certain academics will mention that aspect now and then to give the illusion of "balance and objectivity" but the real focus will always return to those "evil Southerners." What's rather humorous to observe is the fact that many of these academics actually believe that others believe that they're totally objective.I'm not familiar with the Chavers - have you written or researched anything about them?
Actually, I have their service records and that is all. There has been an article in the Franklin County Historical Society publication. Arnold is discussed in The Escort & Staff of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Post a Comment