Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Washington Post

A textbook distributed to Virginia fourth-graders says that thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War -- a claim rejected by most historians but often made by groups seeking to play down slavery's role as a cause of the conflict.

The passage appears in "Our Virginia: Past and Present," which was distributed in the state's public elementary schools for the first time last month. The author, Joy Masoff, who is not a trained historian but has written several books, said she found the information about black Confederate soldiers primarily through Internet research, which turned up work by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Scholars are nearly unanimous in calling these accounts of black Confederate soldiers a misrepresentation of history. Virginia education officials, after being told by The Washington Post of the issues related to the textbook, said that the vetting of the book was flawed and that they will contact school districts across the state to caution them against teaching the passage.

"Just because a book is approved doesn't mean the Department of Education endorses every sentence," said spokesman Charles Pyle. He also called the book's assertion about black Confederate soldiers "outside mainstream Civil War scholarship."



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907974.html?hpid=topnews

[BobTheSubgenius]

1. Trying to put a positilve spin on slavery.

Good luck with that.

[csziggy]

56. I've been doing genealogy and the individual histories try their best

To "put a positive spin" on slavery. If the ancestor was a slave holder, the writers, usually descendants, almost invariably claim that they treated their slaves so nicely that the freed blacks took their master's names after the Civil War.

I have found the genealogy of the family of one of the freed slaves and while they use the surname of their former master, there are no fond memories claiming good treatment. And in the interviews of former slaves done during the Depression (and available on Ancestry) I have yet to find a single account saying how wonderful their masters treated them. Rather I find stories of families being ripped apart, beatings, and cruel treatment.

[AmandaMae]

2. Textbooks can get away with almost anything.

They're not generally reviewed by historians, and they're not really designed to teach history. My high school textbook actually did teach me that the Civil War wasn't fought primarily over slavery, but over state's rights.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen is a good book to read if you want an eye-opening look at just how bad textbooks are.

[laundry_queen]

22. Yes they are awful.

Even college ones. Luckily most of our profs recognize this. Unfortunately, many do not and teach exactly what is in the textbook. Even worse are the online assignments they have now. One I have is so bad they add 10% to your mark to make up for the programming errors. Unreal.

[newspeak]

66. yes, part of it was about states' rights

but, we have had this discussion on DU before, in the articles of confederation slavery is cited. Slavery was a great determining factor-why do you think they were fighting for states' rights? The main reason was slavery.

[Recursion]

69. Exactly, the only "states' right" at issue was the right to be a slave state

Although the South was more than happy to deny the north the "right" to nullify Federal pro-slavery legislation.

[awoke_in_2003]

3. thousands may have "served"...

but they did not "fight".

[bc3000]

4. History books by non-historians based on internet research?

How can this happen?

[Alcibiades]

18. +1

Why not skip the middleman and just let the kids surf the net during history class?

[LTX]

23. It's happening with some regularity these days with respect to

public school texts. David Barton is a prime example of an internet-revisionist shill with no education in history whatsoever. He was an "adviser" to the Texas board of education in their text book wars. Also, a plethora of science deniers who peddle their own creationist, internet hogwash (Henry Morris, Walter Brown, Harun Yahya, etc.) have had significant influence over school boards. It's downright embarrassing, but increasingly common.

[Catshrink]

24. School boards choose textbooks

RW and people with agendas get elected to school boards and when textbook adoption comes around every few years, they have a voice in textbook selection. We've got a tea party loon running for ours and one who thinks we should have college lecture type classes in high school to save money on teachers.

For example, these RW run for positions that draw little notice then wreak havoc. We have some running for the water board that have absolutely no experience in water resource management - their goal is to cut costs, etc. The couple already on this board have attempted to micromanage the agency's operations but others have been able to thwart their efforts. If they get a majority, we're in trouble.

[political_Dem]

44. +100000. That's how Palin got her start.

Never ignore local races.

[Neurotica]

125. That's why I always review textbooks up for adoption

I don't know if our school board has any role in textbook selection, but I'm concerned about who wrote the textbooks and under what guidelines (thinking about the disproportionate influence the Texas state board of education has on all our textbooks). Our school district allows parents to preview and comment. I always look at history and science to ensure that some of the Texas craziness hasn't made its way into our textbooks.

[Catshrink]

128. Our district does the same

there is a public comment period when the books are on display in the district office for people to review.

[redirish28]

5. This is sick.

[Dawson Leery]

6. "Thousands may haved served"?

:wtf: is this s**t? :wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

[Gaedel]

13. They served

A lot of the non-combat tasks in Confederate regiments (cooks, teamsters, litter bearers, officer's orderlies) were held by black slaves. A lot of the engineering tasks in the repair of railroads and bridges in support of the army were done by blacks. The number of blacks that actually fired a rifle in anger must be miniscule, but their contributions of labor allowed the Confederates to put more men of the firing line. In the Union regiments, soldiers had to be diverted from the firing line to do these jobs.

I guess it is semantics on the words "fought" and "served".

I was in the engineers in Vietnam. Did I "fight" in Vietnam or "serve" in Vietnam?

[Recursion]

27. "Served" is well-attested

Thousands of free blacks did serve in the Confederate army (a few slaves were sent but were manumitted in the process). They were explicitly not given combat roles, though.

Oddly enough the Confederate Navy had a lot of black sailors, and nobody ever seemed to have a problem with that.

[GSLevel9]

51. the most accurate post of the bunch... nt

[rpannier]

7. Just because a book is approved doesn't mean the Department of Education endorses every sentence

An idiotic defense by the Virginia DOE
If there was a passage that said, "Water freezes at 32 degrees because little cold fairies come along and freeze it." They'd have pulled the text

[TygrBright]

8. Geez, Historians...Quit being so elitist! History means what WE WANT IT TO MEAN! n/t

[dgibby]

9. OMG!

I studied Va. history in the 4th grade in 1955, and that was NOT taught even back then. This woman's an idiot!

[dgibby]

10. dupe.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. I'll bet they mean soldiers with that "drop of Black blood". You know. White folks.

[Bitwit1234]

12. I don't know about black people as soldiers

but...in my family...and they never ever once owned slaves and did not believe in slavery...had some of the black residents fighting with them against the Yankees. The people who lived in the area where my ancestors from Virginia lived were like a family. A lot of the blacks were not slaves. And when my great grandfather and uncles were "drafted" to fight for the south, their black neighbors helped them. Our family has a story of how the black neighbors helped our ancestors out. So in some cases they did fight with the south. If you didn't go to war when you were "drafted" you were shot. That is why a lot of southern men who did not believe in slavery had to fight.

My grandfather eventually escaped to the North, joined the army. He did not fight in any battles against the south he was stationed in Frederick Maryland. He did get wounded in a skirmish and got a pension. While he was in the Confederate Army he received no clothing no money and half the time no food. That's why he went to the North to feed his family. I know some southerns consider that treason but he was just looking out for his family. And that's why a lot of southerns went over to the north. I think that if the south had been better funded there might have been a different outcome and if that had happened there would have been a tragedy.

[Dogtown]

41. Anecdotal evidence is useless.

It frequently suggests an agenda.

[WolverineDG]

47. No, it's not "useless"

it's actually quite helpful as it helps historians fill in gaps.

dg

[Dogtown]

86. Unverified, stand-alone anecdotes

are useless. Especially in the context of a discussion-board, since we don't have the tools available to historians for qualifying the source.



Most especially when it's contrary to documented fact. *Then* it's only useful to apologists and deniers.

[WolverineDG]

113. Not useless

just because *you* have no use for them doesn't mean such anecdotes are "useless."

dg

[Dogtown]

117. I had to check my notes

before I realized why you're so defensive.

Adios, no use for tools, either.

[Recursion]

62. Anecdote is the difference between a high school history textbook

And a college history text. We don't expect 16-year-olds to be able to look at economic output tables all day and come up with some sense of what that means.

[Dogtown]

87. Are you perhaps confusing "anecdotal"

with "annotated"?



I'm not sure what you're saying.

[Recursion]

88. Umm.. no. High school level history has to be narrative

And narrative history is entirely anecdote.

[Dogtown]

118. OK

[WolverineDG]

46. Family history is interesting, isn't it

don't mind the naysayers. I was long told by teachers I was making up the name of William Dawes & always got the Paul Revere question wrong by answering "William Dawes." Guess who was right all this time? :hi: Why did I do this? Because in my family history, we've long been told that it was William Dawes who went to "every Middlesex village & farm" shouting "The British are coming! The British are coming!" since he was the one who pounded on my ancestor's door to let him know.

dg

[Goblinmonger]

74. Yeah, but Dawes doesn't rhyme with "hear"

so stick that. And it doesn't sound to sexy to say Revere decided to stay at a pub and drink instead of informing people of the British.

[WolverineDG]

81. Dawes also wasn't a relative of Longfellow

:think:

dg

[Recursion]

89. Even Dawes didn't yell "the British are coming"

First off, colonists called themselves British at that point; he might have said "the Regulars are coming", but he was mostly telling Adams and Hancock to go move their arms cache.

[MadHound]

14. The book is essentially correct.

Conservative estimates show that between fifty and sixty thousand African Americans contributed, voluntarily, to the Confederate cause, about ten percent of the Confederate Army. These men, and women, served as everything from basic laborers to putting on uniforms, taking up arms and fighting against Union forces.

The motivations for these actions ranged from fighting for a promise of after war freedom, to actual believe in, and love for, the Confederate system.

This is one of the many uncomfortable truths of the Civil War, but a truth none the less.

[Alcibiades]

25. Really?

"Thousands of Southern blacks fought in the Confederate ranks, including two black battalions under the command of Stonewall Jackson."

I'm a Carolina native, and the grandson of a "Sons of Confederate Veterans" member. If you think this claim is correct, I'd appreciate it if you could find what battles these battalions took part in, and where they fit in the order of battle.

But I don't think you'll be able to do that, because these battalions simply didn't exist.

[Recursion]

30. The Richmond Howitzers and the Jackson Battallion come to mind

Both fought at Petersburg and Cold Harbor, IIRC (you'll note this was at the end of the war when the south was particularly desperate for soldiers).

Though those were mixed-race units; I don't know of a segregated unit -- there wasn't to my knowledge a parallel to the 54th Massachusetts infantry.

[Alcibiades]

33. The citation says they were part of Jackson's corps

Jackson was not present at the battles you cite, for obvious reasons.

[MadHound]

31. I don't know about the battalions,

But I do know that tens of thousands of African Americans served in the Confederate Army. As I've said elsewhere, if you do some digging around in primary documents, you can see for yourself. Right now I'm looking at Confederate pension applications from Tennessee, and the list numbers 267. Compiled records of Virginia Regiments shows over one hundred African Americans, the records go on and on.

You may not like this history, but it is true nevertheless.

[Alcibiades]

36. I'm addressing the specific claim

It is this: that two battalions of black soldiers served under Stonewall Jackson. I don't dispute the claim that as many as "thousands" of blacks served in the Confederate as a whole, though it's interesting that you use mention that you were digging, because that's mainly how these men served.

I seriously doubt you're looking at actual pension records. Likely you're looking at a secondary source that cites pension records--in any event, most blacks who did serve did not do so in what we would consider a regular fashion, and were barred from receiving pensions, so would not have applied.

The claim is that there were two black battalions under Stonewall Jackson. This claim is significantly misleading, because it would imply that the Confederates trusted black soldiers enough to issue them weapons and form them into regular units. If you're familiar with the history of the south, you'll understand why this simply didn't happen.

The mistake that was made is obvious, and again, shows the author's complete ignorance of the history of the civil war: she has, because she has relied on the internet rather than some underlying store of accumulated historical knowledge of primary sources (i.e., like an actual historian) confused the Jackson Hospital companies (not battalions) with units serving under Jackson. Again, they could not, because, while that hospital was named for General Jackson, this honor was bestowed posthumously.

You've glossed over the specific error in the same way that this author does. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that details are important: getting this one wrong would lead us to serious errors about such things as when General Jackson (a notable Virginian, and one you would think a Virginia textbook would want to get these things right about) actually died, to the nature of the black experience in the Civil War, to larger questions about the nature of the institution of slavery and the resistance to it. This is part of an old song some folks have been singing, and I'm not buying what they are selling, because I know my history. It's not a question of liking it, though I was brought up to venerate my ancestors: it's a question of getting it right.

[MadHound]

39. For one who supposedly wants to get it right,

You seem pretty deadset on getting it wrong. You also are assuming a lot about me that you simply don't know. I'm a historian, one who has had more than a passing interest in the Civil War, and one who has done more than cursory research.

Again, it isn't "thousands" that served, but tens of thousands. Most conservative estimates put the number somewhere between fifty and sixty thousand. And yes, a large number of them did their service performing manual labor. But the majority were employed as cooks, foragers, hospital stewards, musicians, teamsters, sailors, chaplains, cavalrymen, sailors and yes, combat soldiers.

Upon further digging in my library and research records, it wasn't two battalions that served in the Jackson Brigade, but rather two companies, yes, a significantly smaller number than Joy Masoff claims, but still significant, and interesting, nonetheless. These two companies saw action at Petersburg, under their commander Col. Shipp, who stated afterward that, "My men acted with utmost promptness and goodwill...Allow me to state sir that they behaved in an extraordinary acceptable manner." Granted, this was in 1864, a year after Jackson's death, but still and all, they did serve in the Jackson Brigade.

As far as secondary sources are concerned, you are wrong. I derive a lot of my research from primary sources, as a good historian should. If you don't believe me, you can go see for yourself at places like the Tennessee State Library and Archives, in their microfilm collections, which has a list of 267 African Americans who applied for Confederate pensions. You can see the muster rolls at the Georgia Dept. of Archives and History in Atlanta and the North Carolina Dept. of Archives and History in Raleigh, among many other places. If you have a decent college library nearby, you can access data bases of old newspapers that will contain various accounts from early part of the twentieth century which go into great detail about African American Confederate soldiers who attended reunions, and were lauded for their service at those reunions. Hell, you live in the South, you can take a fairly short road trip to Canton MS, Madison GA, or Fort Mill SC, among others, to view monuments extolling African American soldiers and slaves for their service to the Confederacy.

You may not like this part of history, but it happened nonetheless. It seems impossible that African Americans would have feelings like patriotism and loyalty towards their oppressors, but still, it did happen. You say that you're concerned with accuracy, great, then do as I did, dig up the research for yourself and see for yourself. Otherwise you are simply putting your own, inaccurate spin on history, a sad, stupid, but common mistake that has been made by too many commentators, quacks and amateur historians who want to shape history to their own personal ends rather than simply dealing with the true messiness of history.

Oh, and your cute little Song of the South poster, just what is that supposed to signify? Are you trying to tell me that I'm glossing history over? If so, as I've demonstrated, I haven't. If you are trying to imply in a cutesy way that I'm some sort of racist revisionist, well then that is despicable and simply goes to show how weak your own knowledge base is that you have to resort to such smears rather than the facts.

[Alcibiades]

60. I have done my own research, thanks

And the story you're telling, the story that things were fine and dandy for slaves until the outsiders came in and riled them up, is an old one, dating from before the Civil War. Most of the literature on the subject, including several of the sources you cite, dates from the reconstruction era, when southern revisionists invented the myth of the lost cause. But if you cite authors out of context in this way, without also noting that these are the same sorts of people who would call Massachusetts abolitionists "negro-worshipers," then you ought to be reminded that the various accounts we read of history do come from sources who have their own agenda. I am familiar with the genre because one of my own ancestors, a lady from Charleston, wrote one of these books.

For someone who is so ready to accuse me of inaccuracies, you're awfully forgiving of Masoff for making errors that ought to be offensive to an academic historian. You should also note that "thousands" does not count out the possibility that the number might be in the "tens of thousands." At any rate, we are talking about different things: I was writing about a specific claim, which was that Jackson had two battalions of black soldiers serving under him, presumably in the Second Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia as regular soldiers. You're now taking the position that this does not matter, as Masoff was only offering this in evidence of a larger claim, which is that a great number of black folks supported the confederacy by service in the CSA. My point is that, to the extent that such service did occur, it was overwhelmingly involuntary, and that making a big deal about such service has historically served a polemical purpose, which is to denigrate and deny the broader history of black resistance to slavery. Which I'm going to now go out on a limb about and guess that you suppose was not the subject of the Civil War. Also, the monuments you cite were part of this project on the part of revisionists to rewrite the history of the south. For every one monument to these black folks, of course, there are a thousand to white Confederates.

I don't need to do any more research: I'm steeped in it, from the time I was a tot. My grandfather had a better collection of books on the subject than our local library, which is saying a lot in South Carolina.

"It seems impossible that African Americans would have feelings like patriotism and loyalty towards their oppressors, but still, it did happen."

So, let's get this straight: you suppose that this was the dominant "feeling" among slaves? I'm not disputing that there were not a few individuals who felt this way: what I am disputing is the claim that this was the central tendency of black opinion in the South between Fort Sumter and Appomattox. The point is that emphasizing these few individuals misses the broader story of black resistance to slavery, a story with which you ought to be familiar.

Again, it's not a question of "liking" this part of history. It's a question of what you have to ignore to invest this with the significance that, apparently, you do.

[MadHound]

70. I'm investing this with significance? Really?

Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Better yet, have you looked at anything else besides your family library? Like the state archives in Tennessee, Georgia and North Carolina, among many other sources for primary documentation? Have you visited the monuments in MS, GA, and SC that extol the service of African Americans in the Confederacy?

What you are steeped in are myths, myths of your family, myths of the South, myths of the Confederacy, myths of the Civil War. That isn't history. History is going back to the source, the primary documents, the muster rolls, the pension applications, the letters, the oral accounts, newspaper accounts and other such records that were recorded at the time

You also make the common mistake of any non-historian, namely you bring your own emotions, prejudices and preconceptions to history, rather than approaching history objectively, letting the records and words of the people who lived it speak for themselves. Yes, many African Americans were essentially forced to fight for the South, of that there is no doubt. But many also served for their own reasons such as patriotism, to snatch an opportunity to gain their freedom, out of loyalty to their master, family or community. I am not claiming that these were dominant feelings among slaves, where you're getting that from, I don't know. But those motivations were present and they are worth studying.

As far as your specific question, I answered it, two companies did serve in Jackson's Brigade, under Col. Shipp, at the Battle of Petersburg. Yes Masoff was mistaken in the claim of battalions, but mixing two companies with two battalions is a common mistake made by a lot of people.

And your claim that, "The story you're telling, the story that things were fine and dandy for slaves until the outsiders came in and riled them up," sorry, but that's the story that you're trying to portray me as saying. I say nothing about "things were fine and dandy for slaves,". This is simply an attempt on your part, much like your cute little Song of the South poster, to portray me as some sort of revisionist historian, or better yet, as a racist. This sort of response only goes to show how shaky the intellectual ground you're standing on is.

I have given you plenty of places to check my story, archives you can research, places that you can visit. Tell you what, why don't you go visit those places, and then get back to me. Do some historical research for once, real historical research instead of just relying on the myths that you're steeped in.

[Alcibiades]

95. This isn't a pissing contest

But I'd win if it were. The reason why I guessed that you gave credence to a southern southern revisionist account of history is because you did cite some of those sources, without putting them in the context of the broader agenda of certain whites in the south who had a longing for the antebellum era. If you think these folks are credible, while minimizing the mistakes of someone who has also sloppily made the claim that many southern blacks supported the CSA, then folks are apt to take you for a Sons of Confederate Veterans-type revisionist.

I'm a political scientist, not a historian. Personally, I believe political scientists are, on the whole, more objective than historians, but I doubt anyone, even historians, are capable of complete objectivity. Moreover, I don't think this sort of objectivity is the task of history, especially when you're studying the morality of war, slavery, or both. A good place for you to begin is Edward Carr's "What is History?"

As for the claim that you're an expert, I'm not buying that, either. You're a dilettante, at best. You've made some factual errors that indicate you're just relying on teh Google, not some personal store of knowledge derived from your extensive knowledge of primary sources.

[MadHound]

103. LOL!

OK, now you've gone into the absurd, absolutely absurd. Apparently you can't handle the truth of history because it breaks up your precious family myths. Typical, sadly typical.

Yet you think that you can give a historian advice:rofl:

Look bub, you know nothing more than myths, you have nothing. You cannot disprove what I say because what I say is true. The proof of this lies in state archives and other such repositories across the South. Tell you what, next time I get to a scanner, I scan the copies of the rosters that I made, the notes and photos that I took, would that satisfy your happy ass?

But since you're making the claim that I'm just relying on Google, prove it, really, seriously, prove it. Show me the digitalized muster rolls that I'm referencing, show me the digitalized personal letters that I transcribed here. Show me how I'm getting all of this from Google.

Oh, you can't, because you have nothing, just nothing out there on Google that proves your point. All those records, they haven't been digitalized, you have to go to the state archives and look at them on microfilm.

Sad, truly sad.

[Alcibiades]

135. Which are, what, exactly?

Which myths? The myth that scads of slaves loved the CSA and served in the CSA? Out of love for the Confederacy? Or the truth, which is that slavery was wildly unpopular among slaves, and that they resisted it to whatever extent possible. Confederates simply didn't arm large numbers of slaves weapons because they knew exactly what they would do with them if they had the chance. The possibility was discussed at the highest levels in the CSA and in Richmond, and rejected.

You seemed surprised that the primary source you mentioned was by an author. What author? Richard Taylor. A real scholar would have been familiar enough with who he was to know that he had an axe to grind, and that he did so in the very book you cite. Someone who calls abolitionists "negro worshipers" is probably not really an objective reporter of the love for the Confederacy by slaves.

A real historian would also be very pissed off that textbooks in Virginia are being authored by a non-historian who relies on the internet for research and who gets the facts about the Civil War wrong.

And instead of relying on primary sources, it would appear you have simply copied them all from "Black Confederates" (Barrow, Segars & Rosenburg, eds.).

[Recursion]

119. Duty Calls...

[BlueCheese]

139. Self-delete. Decided not to get involved.

Self-delete

[marmar]

28. "and love for, the Confederate system"

Bullshit.

[MadHound]

35. First hand accounts

"On one occasion, while so engaged, a fine-looking negro, who seemed to be leader among his comrades, approached me and said: "Thank you, Massa General, they give us plenty of good vituals; but how you like our work?" I replied that they had worked very well. "If you you would give us guns we will fight for these works, too. We would rather fight for our own white folks that for strangers."

Taylor, Richard, Destruction and Reconstruction: Personal Experiences of the Late War (New York, 1879)

"We notice in many of our exchanges that the colored gentry of several of the cities of the Confederacy, have displayed much loyalty and patriotism in the donations to the Confederate cause. Balls have been resorted to in a great many instances, from the proceeds of which liberal donations have been made. We are no advocate of this plan to raise the wind, by which our colored gentry display therir liberality and loyalty. But as it appears to be tolerated and commended every where, we do not see any good reason why the "colored folks" of Atlanta may not be heralded as having been engaged in the good work, as well as those of other cities. . ."

Atlanta Georgia, The Daily Intelligence, Dec. 28, 1861.

"I received a letter from Abe Goodgame, a mulatto slave belonging to Colonel Goodgame of my regiment, who was captured in the Valley is now a prisoner confined at Fort McHenry, having positively refused to take the oath. He asks me to write his master when I am exchanged and tell him of his whereabouts, and that he is faithful to him."

Letter of Capt. Robert Park, 12th Alabama Regiment, from prison, 1863

"Do if you come in contact with any of those heartless Yankees, give them a few shots of a bombshell and clear them from our coasts. The never gave us our home and they have no right to it. Oour soldiers may have a long fight, but I hope they will fight, and watch, and pray, and never give up the field."

Georgia family nurse, writing to her master who is at war

"The Federals came in and walked about some two or three hours and finally left it. Some people think that we are in a very dangerous predicament, others think we are safe. The majority of the people of this place think their intentions are to reach Norfolk and Weldon. I hope that they will not be successful, indeed I think they will not for I am certain that god is on our side and that his strong arm will protect our weak Confederacy. You need not have any fears as to my safety for I will not suffer the vandals to disturb me. I will not even give them a chance."

Letter from Mariah Bowens, a free mulatto servant of Winton, NC, Feb. 19, 1862

You may not like it, but the truth of the matter is that many African Americans felt loyalty and patriotism for the South. Some of it could arise out of we now call Stockholm Syndrome, but in many cases I think that the feelings for the Confederacy were genuine. After all, you've got to remember that the North was no panacea for African Americans at this time either. Free African Americans were lynched, shot, robbed, beaten, all north of the Mason-Dixon line before, during and after the Civil War. During the NYC Draft riots of 1863, you could go through certain sections of town and find a lynched African American hanging from every single lamppost. Perhaps this loyalty grew out of the attitude of "it's better to know the devil you're dealing with", but the fact of the matter, for whatever many varied reasons, many African Americans remained loyal to, worked for, and fought for the Confederacy.

[Alcibiades]

37. I love your first example

Did he give that man a gun? Methinks the negro soldier in question may have had other uses for a weapon had one been offered.

Oh, and don't omit the larger point the author was making:

"In their dealings with the negro the white men of the South should ever remember that no instance of outrage occurred during the war. Their wives and little ones remained safe at home, surrounded by thousands of faithful slaves, who worked quietly in the fields until removed by the Federals. This is the highest testimony to the kindness of the master and the gentleness of the servant: and all the dramatic talent prostituted to the dissemination of falsehood in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and similar productions can not rebut it."

and this:

"Now that Federal bayonets have been turned from her bosom, this poison, the influence of three fourths of a million of negro voters, will speedily ascend and sap her vigor and intelligence."

and this:

"Under the baleful influence of negro suffrage it is impossible to foretell the destiny of the South. Small wonder that pure democracies have ever proved ready to exchange "Demos" for some other tyrant."

and this:

" Northern Republicans and Democrats, long estranged, buried the political hatchet and met for a common purpose, to restore the Union. Negro-worshipers from Massachusetts and slavedrivers from South Carolina entered the vast hall arm in arm."

Forgive me if I don't give this author, or other southern whites writing during the reconstruction period, much credence.

[MadHound]

42. What author are you talking about?

I didn't quote any author, I was quoting primary sources:shrug:

Oh, and it's quite possible that the man you are referring to in my post above did give that African American a gun. If you don't believe me, then how do you explain the African American infantrymen and soldiers who were welcomed to Confederate reunions across the South in the first part of the twentieth century?

[Alcibiades]

97. Richard Taylor

Author of Destruction and Reconstruction. And, if you read the passage you cite, it's evident that he did not issue that man a weapon.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1jDjWtioygC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[MadHound]

109. But many others were either issued weapons or procurred them in other ways

"At the battle of Chickamauga the Fourth Tennessee Cavalry was dismounted to fight as infrantry, every fouth man being told off to hold horses. These horse-holders, and also all of the colored serants, were kept in the rear. The colored men numbered about 40, and having been in service a long time, had gradually armed themselves. soome of them were even better equipped than their masters, for on successful raids and batles they could follow in the rear and pick up those things that the soldiers had no time to secure; so that these colored servants could each boast of one or two revolvers and a fine carbine or repeating rifle."

Hawkinsville Dispatch, Feb 8, 1885

The article goes on to described how these African Americans went on into the front line and fought the Union. And this is far from the only example of armed slaves, and freemen, fighting and dying for the Confederacy. I'm sorry if you can't get your head around this, if it disturbs your precious preconceived notions, but it is the truth nonetheless.

[Gormy Cuss]

38. So all three historians quoted in the article are wrong?

David Blight, Yale University.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James McPherson of Princeton University
Ervin Jordan, University of Virginia.

The last was cited as a source by Masoff and even he says she got it wrong.

[MadHound]

40. If you look up the muster rolls, the pension applications, letters, reunion publications,

And other primary source material, you quickly find that yes, those historians are wrong. State archives and historical societies across the South are sitting on all this material, yet view people come to view it. I personally went down to the Tennessee State Archives to view the microfilm of these records, and the last time they had been looked at was in the sixties.

Far too many people, historians included, get entirely too comfortable with their own view of history and will vehemently deny anything to the contrary, even when their view is demonstrably wrong. This is especially a problem in historical areas like the Civil War and the South, since it does touch on issues of race, slavery oppression, and the conflicting emotional currents caused when you run up against a historical fact that contradicts your own historical POV. I don't know why these three historians are taking this line, but the fact is, they're wrong, and as I said, the proof lies in various archives and collections across the South. Don't believe me, go look for yourself.

[Xithras]

50. One oft-forgotten fact about the pre Civil War south.

In 1860, records show that there were roughly a half million "free negroes" (their legal designation at the time) in the U.S., and more than half of them lived in the South. They were free to leave the South at any time, but did not do so for various reasons.

They had differing purposes for joining, but it's historically correct to point out that a large number of them fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. If you look at the writings of the day, it appears that most fought for simple patriotism. Most were poorly educated, and few really understood what the "United States" even was. From their perspective, they were Georgians, or Virginians, or Carolinians, and they were being invaded by New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, and Massholes (I just realized that I have no idea what the proper term is for a person from Mass!) They primarily took up arms to defend their homes from what they perceived to be a foreign invading force (as did many in the south, of all races).

Antebellum southerners were taught, from childhood, that they were citizens of their states first, and that the federal government was mostly a trade governing body. Free blacks, who were still banned from being formally educated, gained their understanding of civics primarily from secondhand discussions with whites. It's very unlikely that many really understood what they were fighting for, or against...though it's clear that some DID fight to continue slavery, knowing they were doing so.

[MadHound]

54. Thank you,

Far too many people bring their own, modern viewpoint and emotions to history, and simply don't, or can't try to understand what was going on in the minds of the people of that time. We see this time and again in areas such as WWII, the Civil War and the American Revolution, among others.

[struggle4progress]

58. Um, the Confederacy didn't allow blacks to enlist until mid-March 1865. The war ended

almost immediately after that, and before that blacks served only as slaves. The former confederate states offered essentially no civil war pensions to blacks until the 1920s -- and the pensions weren't offered for combat activity but for cooking, construction work, and the like

The Employment of Negroes as Soldiers in the Confederate Army
Charles H. Wesley
The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Jul., 1919), pp. 239-253
'The problem of arming the slaves was of far greater concern to the 'South, than to the North ... Most of the Negro population was living in the area under rebellion, and in many cases the slaves outnumbered the whites. 'To arm these slaves would mean the lighting of a torch which, in the burning, might spread a flame throughout the slave kingdom ... The South had been aware of its imminent danger and with its traditional methods strove to prevent the arming of the Negroes. With the memories of Negro insurrections ever fresh in the public mind, quite a change of front would be required to bring the South to view with favor such a radical measure ... In November, 1864, Jefferson Davis in his message to the Confederate Congress recognized that the time might come when slaves would be needed in the Confederate army ... In the same month, J. A. Seddon, Secretary of War, refused permission to Major E. B. Briggs of Columbus, Georgia, to raise a regiment of Negro troops, stating that it was, not probable that any such policy would be adopted by Congress ... A strong recommendation for the use of Negroes as soldiers was sent to Senator Andrew Hunter at Richmond by General Robert E. Lee, in January, 1865 ... The Confederate Senate refused on February 7, 1865, to pass a resolution calling on the committee on military affairs to report a bill to enroll Negro soldiers ... With recommendations from General Lee and Governor Smith of Virginia, and with the approval of President Davis an act was passed by the Congress, March 13, 1865, enrolling slaves in the Confed- erate army ... http://www.jstor.org/pss/2713776

Looking for Bob: Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War
By James G. Hollandsworth, Jr.
THE JOURNAL OF MISSISSIPPI HISTORY
... Black southerners contributed to the Confederate war effort in four ways. First, as slaves, they provided the labor that fueled the southern economy and maintained the production of foodstuffs and other commodities essential to the South’s prosecution of the war. Second, slaves were rented to or impressed by the Confederate government to work on specific projects related to the South’s military infrastructure, such as fortifications, bridges, and railroads. Third, African Americans made up a substantial part of the permanent work force in the Confederacy’s war-related industries, such foundries, munitions factories, and mines. In addition, they drove wagons that transported food and war material produced by these industries to the front. They also provided services to wounded and sick soldiers in Confederate hospitals. Last, a large number of black southerners went to war with the Confederate army as noncombatants serving as personal servants, company cooks, and hostlers ... Although Confederate pensions were limited initially to disabled veterans, it was not long before eligibility was expanded to include veterans who were indigent ... African Americans who had served with the Confederate army were not included. That situation changed in 1921, however, when Tennessee decided to offer pensions to African Americans who went to war as servants or cooks. “A new feature in the pension appropriation of Tennessee makes an allowance for pensions to the faithful negroes who were in the war with their masters and served them to the end,” an editorial in the Confederate Veteran noted after Tennessee’s inclusion of black noncombatants was announced ... The state pension board in Virginia was less interested in the master’s unit than in the nature of the work the black applicant performed. Legislation in the other states, except North Carolina, limited pensions to African Americans who had gone to war as servants to their masters or who had been rented by their masters to cook for Confederate soldiers ... Surprisingly, none of the states except Mississippi asked black applicants if they were wounded as a result of their service with the Confederate army ... mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/pensioners.pdf

[MadHound]

64. Then answer this,

How do you explain the muster rolls of African American combat soldiers dated before 1865? How do you explain Col. Shipp's two companies of African Americans who fought at the Battle of Petersburg in 1864? How do you explain the dozens and dozens of Confederate reunions of soldiers who welcomed African American combat troops to their reunions? How do you explain the monuments and markers dotting the South that celebrate African Americans' contributions in combat?

You're right, the Confederacy as a whole did not enlist African Americans until almost the end of the Civil War. But the fact of the matter is that individual commanders, state's military units(which were in many ways more important than the national Confederate army) and others took on African Americans as, yes, cooks, musicians and laborers, but also as front line combat troops.

If you don't believe me, I suggest you take a road trip through the South. Check out the monuments in Canton MS, outside of Madison GA, and Fort Mill SC, among other places, all erected to remember and celebrate the contributions, and specifically combat contributions, of African Americans in the Confederacy.

Or stop by the Tennessee State Archive and look at the muster rolls, the pension rolls (which list what job a particular person did, cook, musician, soldier, etc). Or any of the other such archives scattered throughout the South. The evidence is out there, you just have to put aside your preconceived notions and go look for yourself.

[struggle4progress]

75. The Civil War in Georgia, An Illustrated Travelers Guide

By Richard J. Lenz ...
Sherpa Guides > Civil War > Middle Georgia > Madison ...
Confederate Cemetery
Old City Cemetery, Central Ave., Madison
The dead in the Confederate section, located near the railroad tracks, consist of 51 unknown and one known Confederate soldier and one black hospital attendant. These men died of wounds or disease in the Confederate hospitals located in Madison, known as Stout, Blackie, Asylum, Turnbull and others, which operated from late 1862 to early 1865. Note the Confederate headstone marked "Unknown Colored Hosp. Attend." ... http://www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/civil_war/mid_ga/madison_area.html

So your "monument ... outside of Madison GA" is just one gravestone -- of a hospital worker whose name the ungrateful Confederates couldn't even bother to remember

[MadHound]

79. Umm, I didn't say headstone,

I would let you know just exactly where the marker is, and what it says, but I'm having too much fun watching you making a fool of yourself.

But you're on the right track there, a cemetery usually indicates that a battle was nearby, so keep on flipping through that traveler's guide of yours.

[struggle4progress]

83. It is easy enough to make vague claims, without support. I've given you links. You've given me none.

[MadHound]

85. How do you link to markers that aren't open to the public?

How do you link to markers and monuments that have been forgotten by the vast majority of people?

I spent two years criss-crossing the South doing research on this question. I dug through state archives, newspaper archives, military archives. I've given you some of these archives where you can find some of the information I'm referring to, but since those records aren't digitized, you're going to have to go look for yourself.

There are markers and monuments all across the South that have been forgotten. Hell, there are Civil War battlefields that have been buried. Many have been torn down, many are in private hands. If you want proof, then go do the digging yourself. Or take the peer reviewed word of historian who knows what the hell he's talking about. Your choice.

[struggle4progress]

96. I'm not interested in coy games. Bye!

:hi:

[MadHound]

104. In other words you have nothing, and are trying to exit gracefully as possible,

Bye:hi:

[Radical Activist]

63. Your mistake is calling it voluntary.

It wasn't voluntary for all of them. Some plantation owners made units out of their own slaves. And agreeing to fight to win your own freedom is hardly a statement of support for the confederate cause.

In today's terms, I would compare it to Democrats who work for the US Chamber of Commerce or Log Cabin Republicans. There's never a shortage of people who will seek their own short-term self interest and suck up to those in power, even when it harms others.

[MadHound]

72. If you read my whole host of posts in this thread,

You will see that I never stated that it was all voluntary. Yes, most were ordered to the front by their masters. But a significant number did serve voluntarily, for a variety of reasons that I've gone into elsewhere on this thread. Were they looking out for their own short term self interests, certainly. But others were generally patriotic and didn't want to rejoin the Union. Strange as this might seem, it made good sense to them, and they acted on it.

[CreekDog]

84. I want evidence for your second claim, "...actual belief in, and love for, the Confederate system"

you don't just throw out the idea that some black folks loved slavery without getting called on it.

[MadHound]

91. Well, not to mince words, but I said the "Confederate system"

Perhaps that is a bit unclear on my part, but it refers to the Confederate culture, lifestyle, and yes, slavery.

That aside, I think some of the proof you're looking for is mentioned by others in this thread who, correctly, point out that there were African Americans who owned plantations and slaves. I also quoted a newspaper article upthread that stated how the "colored gentry" of Atlanta held a fundraiser for the Confederacy. What does that imply to you? What about that other letter that I mentioned, the one from the slave imprisoned in Fort McHenry. All he had to do was take an oath and he would have been free. Instead he remained faithful to his master and his cause, even though imprisoned in brutal conditions. What does that say to you?

[CreekDog]

93. that you are doing well at supporting the meme that slavery wasn't so bad

because some people reportedly liked it more than some hypothetical alternative.

what does it say about me?

it says that i won't be a tool and nor will what i write, be fodder for those that seek to claim such awful things.

however, what you wrote certainly can be.

[MadHound]

100. Where are you getting this?

Because I'm not dogmatically stating that SLAVERY IS BAD every other paragraph. I'm sorry that I'm discussing this matter in such an academic matter that it offends you, but really now, we're not discussing ethics of slavery here, but rather the question of whether or not they served in the Confederacy and in what capacity. Two entirely different questions.

But you continue to bring up the issue of the ethics of slavery, why? Frankly I think that it is to cover up your own lack of knowledge. You are doing everything but screaming "racist" in order to try and discredit me, why? Is this knowledge that threatening to you? Are you that scared of the truth?

If you wish to continue this discussion with me, stick to the original, historical question. If you want to get into the ethics of the Civil War, slavery, etc., start your own thread on the matter. But be aware that I had ancestors who fought for the Union, the Confederacy, and who were slaves. Won't that be a fun conversation.

[CreekDog]

105. well not that you didn't state it often enough, but that you didn't state it at all

in a discussion where you offered many anecdotes justifying the "Confederate System".

so I think that's relevant. heck, I know it's relevant.

and i certainly haven't called you a racist, nor have i implied it. i've simply stated that your anecdotes were tossed off carelessly enough and without proper context to further a meme that states that the Civil War was about more than slavery and that slavery wasn't so bad because various people "liked" it.

if you want to be a party to that lie in the name of truth, then you are missing a huge contradiction.

[MadHound]

110. Where did I justify the "Confederate System", slavery, or anthing like that?

Please, point it out to me, because otherwise it looks like you're either completely misunderstanding what I'm saying or simply going off on a rant to somehow cover your own lack of knowledge on this subject:shrug:

And yes, you are implying that I'm a racist, and you did it in this latest post, "i've simply stated that your anecdotes were tossed off carelessly enough and without proper context to further a meme that states that the Civil War was about more than slavery and that slavery wasn't so bad because various people "liked" it."

Again, show me where I'm saying that slavery wasn't so bad because various people like it, SHOW ME OR SHUT THE FUCK UP! You are making these accusations and implications with no solid basis in truth. You are using personal attacks because you simply don't have the knowledge base required to participate in this discussion, so instead you spread insults and lies.

You know what, just forget it, you don't have to show me anything more, you have showed me plenty, namely that it is useless to get into a discussion with you. If something challenges your preconceived truth, then you argue about it, and argue without facts to back your ass up with. When that fails, you resort to insults and innuendo. You don't want to know the truth, but rather like the teabaggers and history, you would rather stay in your comfortable little womb of myths and half-truths.

So have at it, have the last childish word, insult or smear, I don't give a damn. It is easy enough for people around here to recognize who has the intellectual backing and who is simply an asshole. :hi:

[CreekDog]

112. it's not a personal attack, it's based on your posts here

and it's that your arguments are serving a pretty insidious meme.

do you intend to serve that meme? i'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying "no, i don't think you do". but are you serving it? yes.

do you realize it? i'm not sure, but you should by now.

again, i haven't called you racist --my point is clearly NOT about your feelings regarding race. i don't even know your racial background!

[CreekDog]

94. and of what you call the "Confederate System", what makes it distinctive from the Union?

slavery.

they could've kept their big houses with the impressive looking columns and given up slavery.

but it was slavery that was fought for, not freaking culture.

[MadHound]

101. Actually the Confederate System that I'm referring to is a bit more inclusive than just slavery,

It refers to culture, religion, politics, etc. etc. Yes, slavery is a large part of it, but not the be all and end all of it. If you don't recognize that, then you have some large, historical blinders on.

And while yes, the primary reason for the Civil War was indeed slavery, many people fought for many different reasons ranging from political to family loyalty to community loyalty, to simple personal advancement, etc. etc.

No, it isn't a simple answer, but many things in history aren't simple and the sooner you realize that, they better off you'll be.

[CreekDog]

102. In my post, I carefully termed the war as, "slavery is what was fought for"

and that's most certainly true.

the war was fought over slavery...nearly all other facets of Southern Culture persisted with the exception of that.

that you can find lots of anecdotes saying, "I fought for this" and "I fought for that"...it doesn't matter...none of them decided that the war *would be fought* in the first place.

and that's what i was getting at.

[CreekDog]

106. of course it is to you

that's like saying Gone With The Wind also had cool costumes and fun depictions of family life.

:eyes:

[Brewman_Jax]

15. More revisionist bullshit

by the neo-confederates to show that they "weren't so bad, slaves were respected"--revisionist lies. There were no black Confederate soldiers, although Gen. Patrick Cleburne was a leading proponent of enlisting black troops. The few that fought were members of volunteer or state militias.

[MadHound]

16. You're wrong,

It wasn't "a few", it was tens of thousands. You can go back to the primary documents and find proof of African Americans serving in the Confederate Army. Things such as applications for pensions, newspaper articles that cover reunions of Confederate soldiers, photographs taken at the time, first person oral recollections, monuments and markers erected, and now mostly forgotten, across the South, military rosters, service records, etc.

You may not like this piece of history, but it is still true.

[Brewman_Jax]

19. Actually, you're wrong

they did fight for the confederacy, but the Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. You might be right about the count, but they were still state and volunteer militia.

[MadHound]

20. Yet they turn up on official military rosters of the time,

Pension applications, reunions, etc. The Confederate Congress didn't officially approve, but in all real ways that matter, including fighting and dying for the Confederacy, tens of thousands of African Americans were Confederate soldiers.

[VMI Dem]

21. But were they conscripted and forced or was it voluntary?

[MadHound]

26. Both,

Many came along with their masters, but some even volunteered, as strange as that seems.

[Gaedel]

115. Each Confederate regiment

Each Confederate regiment was authorized a band of sixteen musicians. Over fifty percent of Confederate musicians were black, the majority of them free. The free and slave black musicians were paid on the same scale as the white musicians (pay of the slaves went to their masters). During battle, the musicians served as litter bearers.

[WolverineDG]

48. No, it's not revisionist bullshit

If it's true that there were blacks listed on the military rolls, then it's a fact that there were black Confederate soldiers.

The argument would then be over whether they were there of their own volition or because they were ordered to by their masters. (& my money is on "ordered by their masters")

dg

[MadHound]

49. Like many of the motivational questions in history, this one is complicated

Many African Americans were indeed ordered to the front by their masters. Others went because of opportunity, the opportunity to advance themselves, the opportunity to vote, the opportunity to free themselves, the opportunity for a grand adventure. Others went to war out of local loyalties, to their master, to their family, to their community. And still others went because they bought into the whole notion of Confederate independence, states' rights, etc.

But the fact of the matter is that they did go to war, and contributed to war effort of the Confederacy in many ways, and yes, sometimes with a gun.

[CreekDog]

90. I take issue with your insistence that some "slaves" were acting of their own accord

they were not free men and your offensive statements which attempt to attribute to slaves motivations for serving as if they were free to choose --truly free, which they were most certainly not.

any nevermind that though you consider it strange that they would want to serve, despite stating earlier that some blacks had "love of the Confederate system" (whatever the hell that unexplained statement means) you can't seem to bring yourself to say that slavery was bad.

[MadHound]

99. Well then, I suppose you'll have to take issue with the people who were there

Again, you can go to state archives throughout the South and find reams of letters, oral histories, newspaper articles, journals, diaries, etc. that back up my contention that yes, these African Americans acted out of their own free will. Here's an example:

"Reuben Weston Cleveland born March 14, 1843. I left Elberton with the first volunteers from the country. I was in Lynchburg, Va. when the first battle of Manassas was fought.

I was a participant in the second battle of Manassas. I was first wounded in the battle at Sharpsburg M.D., being shot through the left lung. My shoulder blade was shattered, so I came home on furlough. The hole was left open for seven months so the pus could drain out. Finally I got well and to my Company, I 15 Ga. volunteers. I was next wounded at the battle of Gettysburg, a bad flesh wound on the knee. I was squatting and the yankee that shot me was within ten feet of me. I managed to get home again by the help of a negro servant, who was captured three times by the enemy but always managed to get away and come back to me. I got well again and went back to my company. A ball cut a groove along my skull, at the battle of the Wilderness. I was sent to Lynchburg, Va. to a hospital where I had a bad time but being a man of tremendous constitution I got well again. I was never sick except a spell of measles. I was in active duty till Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Va. I was in many skirmishes not mentioned here. I was Top Sergeant at the time of the surrender. After being paroled I walked home, arriving there on the 29th day of April.

I am now 91 years old and nearly six months. I am living at Elberton Georgia."

That is the transcript of an oral recollection of an African American soldier who served in the Confederacy. He was a free man, and served of his own free will. There were thousands of more like him. You can find this transcript in the Georgia State Archive, if you would but care to look, rather than shutting your mind to the truth.

As far as denouncing slavery, we weren't discussing the morality of slavery, we were discussing whether, and to what degree African Americans served in the Confederate Army. If it would make you happy, then yes, I do denounce slavery. After all, a number of my ancestors were slaves, so why would I endorse their bondage?

I don't consider it strange, and once you start looking at primary documents, you'll find it isn't strange. As I've said earlier, African Americans served for a number of reasons. Yes, the majority served because they were ordered to the front, but others served out of a sense of patriotism, or local loyalties, the brotherhood of the army, or simply to advance themselves in one way or another. You may not like that idea, but it is the truth, and if you would do even a modicum of research you would find that out.

[struggle4progress]

132. That's nice. What's your evidence that Reuben Weston Cleveland was black?

He was apparently the county surveyor for Elbert County, Georgia -- a deep South state, not particularly likely to give government jobs to people with African ancestry, unless the ancestry was unknown and so minor that the person could "pass for white"

You can find Reuben Weston Cleveland listed among the descendents of Moses Cleaveland (the surveyor who first laid out Cleveland) in "The genealogy of the Cleveland and Cleaveland families. An attempt to trace, in both the male and female lines, the posterity of Moses Cleveland ... of Alexander Cleveland ... with numerous biographical sketches; and containing ancestries of many of the husbands and wives, also a bibliography of the Cleveland family and a genealogical account of Edward Winn of Woburn, and of other Winn families," volume 3, published in Hartford in 1899

Reuben Weston Cleveland
Birth: 14 MAR 1843
Death: 16 MAR 1935
Note: He served in the Confederate Army in the Civil War and was county surveyor for Elbert County, Georgia ...
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=bartlett1944&id=I16411

The genealogy of the Cleveland and Cleaveland families ...
+ 16990 Reuben Weston' Cleveland, born Mar. 14, 1843, Broad River ...
16990. REUBEN WESTON CLEVELAND (peter«), m. on Broad river, n. Elberton, Ga., Dec. 15, 1859, Mary Ann Victoria Fortson, b. n. E. Nov. 5, 1842, da. Jesse Marion and Fannie (Mills) ...
Orderly Sergt. Reuben Weston' Cleveland lived in Elbert CO., Ga., to June 15, 1861, then enlisted private in C. S. A., Co. I, 15th Ga., the ist co. that left the county, soon prom, to corporal, was ist sergt. 2 last years of the war. Was in battle of Garnett's farm, n. Richmond, charge and siege Knoxville ; severely wounded in battle of Sharpsburg, Md.; in Brig.-Gen. Henry L. Benning's Brigade, Longstreet's Corps, in charge at Gettysburg,, wounded that evening ; was wounded in the Wilderness ; continued in Gen. Lee's army until the surrender, 1865, then returned to Elbert co.; lived there, to 1870, in Wilkes co., Ga., to 1872, and since in Elbert co., P. O., Elberton (1885). Surveyor and farmer.

http://www.archive.org/stream/genealogyofcleve03clev/genealogyofcleve03clev_djvu.txt

[Nevernose]

55. Not all blacks in the antebellum South were slaves

Some freed blacks were armed an in danger, but most black confederates served as cooks, musicians, and laborers; some were ordered to be there, others were offered their freedom for serving. Other blacks were armed in militias, because bandits and union soldiers (e.g. Sherman) weren't too discerning in what they pillaged.

In fact, there are records of black slave owners -- and not just former slaves freeing their families or something similar, but black people who owned other black people: actual, working slaves. A tiny minority of slave owners, granted, but it still takes away from the black/white us/them good/evil narrative.

However, this would be needless confusion in a fourth grade textbook...unless one's goal is to confuse 4th graders with some neo-confederate, Stonewall Jackson-worshiping, far-right whackjob bullshit.

[MadHound]

59. Actually I think that it is things like this that need to be included in fourth grade history,

Not lots of them, but enough to show that the myths of our history aren't accurate, and that there are many different perspectives that go into making up our history.

You don't need to do this with every single contradiction that one finds in fourth grade. But one or two of these issues should be included in order to give your students an introduction in how to approach and learn about these matters. Start off with some of the contradictions of colonial and Revolutionary America, like the fact that the majority of Americans did not support the Revolution.

[struggle4progress]

65. ... During the war, free blacks in Virginia suffered the usual oppressions of a slave society. They

could not vote or hold office or even testify against whites in courts of law. They were required to carry certification of their free status and were liable to punishment or imprisonment on suspicion of being a slave. The war brought increased vigilance as Confederates became more apprehensive of the free black population. For instance, authorities evicted the James family from their home near Deep Bottom on the James River because they suspected them of providing information to Union gunboats ... Free blacks in Virginia almost unanimously supported the Union over the Confederacy as a rejection of their subordinate positions within Southern society. Though not personally enslaved themselves, free blacks embraced the abolition of slavery. Elizabeth Wingfield of Dinwiddie County supported the Union side because "I thought they had come to free all the colored people & to give them their rights." Wingfield, like many other free blacks in Virginia, counted a relative—her husband—among the enslaved. Even free blacks without enslaved relatives had reason to support the Union over the Confederacy. William James of Henrico County supported the Union because "I believed that if the Rebels gained their independence they would make slaves of all of us free colored people." White Virginians never passed a re-enslavement law, but the possibility of such legislation rendered freedom for blacks precarious. Other free blacks hoped that the Union would bring racial equality. Isaac Pleasants of Henrico County believed that "it was to the interest of all colored people to be in favor of the Yankees as I had an idea that slavery was a good deal at stake in the conflict between the states and that the success of the North would improve the condition of the slaves, at least." At most, free blacks hoped that the Union victory would grant them equal rights. Joseph Brown of New Kent County explained, "We had no chance for education & hardly any rights at all. I always believed the Yankees would give me my rights, & I prayed constantly for them to come" ... http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Free_Blacks_During_the_Civil_War

[CreekDog]

108. + 3/5ths

but the war was not only about slavery.

it was to preserve a uniquely southern culture and way of life.

:sarcasm:

[VMI Dem]

17. I don't know the real number or the circumstances, but I have seen many pictures..

of African American confederate soldiers.

[Recursion]

32. There's a monument somewhere on the Northern Neck

About halfway down on the Rappahanock, if you're from VA I'm sure you're familiar with the little cavalry raid mini-shrines that dot the highways everywhere? I used to photograph them and this one stuck with me because it mentioned this was a "colored detachment" that fought off a Union cavalry raid in 1865.

[krispos42]

29. I'm sure they did

I'm also pretty sure it wasn't done voluntarily. I'm sure many of the aristocrats brought their own slaves with them to serve them and their fellow officers. And I find it very likely that plantation owners ordered their slaves into Confederal service digging fortifications, laying railroad tracks, clearing obstacles, and loading/unloading military cargo.

[Radical Activist]

73. You have to wonder

how a slave or even a free black person in the South would have known what the war was really about. Abolitionist literature had long been banned and even blocked by the postal service in the south. They probably believed they were fighting for whatever white leaders were telling them the war was about. Where would they find out otherwise?

[krispos42]

107. The grapevine, of course.

Remember, the slaveowners tended to treat the slaves as furniture. Bits and pieces would have leaked out from overheard conversations and such and been passed around by mouth, especially in a camp situation.

I doubt they had the specifics, but they probably had a general idea. And when Lincoln make the Emancipation Proclamation that must have spread like wildfire in one form or another among everybody!

[Recursion]

34. Some photographs

[Courtesy Flush]

43. The first picture looks faked

The rest do look genuine, though. The first pic shows a man in 20th century slacks and shoes, and while he's wearing CSA garb, he holds an object (canteen?) issued by the Union Army. Probably some photographer trying to make a retro-looking photo.

But as I said, the other pics look more genuine.

[Gaedel]

116. I agree the first picture looks recent

but, it was quite likely that a confederate soldier would have a U.S. canteen.

[struggle4progress]

126. T^he "1st Louisiana Native Guard 1861" photo was taken in Philadelphia in 1864

and actually shows Union soldiers: it has been retouched and the caption is in a Microsoft Word font. The original was the basis for a Union recruiting poster

See
Retouching History:
The Modern Falsification of a Civil War Photograph
Jerome S. Handler and Michael L. Tuite, Jr.
http://people.virginia.edu/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/essay.html

http://people.virginia.edu.nyud.net:8090/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/figure1.html
http://people.virginia.edu.nyud.net:8090/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/figure2.html

[COLGATE4]

133. I assumed that (judging from the age of the man - see his face

and grey hair) that this was some kind of a 50th (or more) reunion type photo, not necessarily a 'fake'.

[theHandpuppet]

67. Oh, about that photo of the 1st Lousiana Native Guard....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1st_Louisiana_Native_Guard_(CSA)
(excerpt)
The 1st Louisiana Native Guard (CSA) was a Confederate Louisiana militia of "free persons of color" formed in 1861 in New Orleans, Louisiana. It was disbanded in February 1862; some of the members joined the Union Army's 1st Louisiana Native Guard regiment (later the 73rd Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Louisiana_Native_Guard
(excerpt)
The 1st Louisiana Native Guard (later became the 73rd Regiment Infantry U.S. Colored Troops) was one of the first all-black regiments to fight in the Union Army during the American Civil War. It was based in New Orleans, Louisiana, and played a prominent role in the Siege of Port Hudson. A predecessor regiment by the same name existed in the Confederate Louisiana militia.

But don't let a little thing like FACTS get in your way.

[Recursion]

68. Your own link says they were a Confederate unit

:shrug: I'm not sure what "FACTS" you're claiming I'm missing. To quote:

The 1st Louisiana Native Guard (CSA) was a Confederate Louisiana militia of "free persons of color" formed in 1861 in New Orleans

The Union seized New Orleans very early in the war, and re-formed this unit (and I think a zouave unit also).

[theHandpuppet]

76. New Orleans fell to the Union in April of 1862

The 1st Louisiana Native Guard was disbanded in February of that same year. The Union Army did not organize another regiment by that name until late September of '62, at which time a number of men who had served in the Ist Louisiana Native Guard joined the Union regiment of the same name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Louisiana_Native_Guard_(CSA)
The South did not use this Confederate Native Guard regiment in any military action, and failed to provide it with uniforms or arms. Most of the men in the unit used their own resources to obtain weapons and uniforms which were displayed in a parade in New Orleans on January 8, 1862<2>. It was largely considered part of the Confederacy's "public relations" campaign.

http://www2.netdoor.com/~jgh/bravery.html
When the war began, many of the benevolent societies formed units in the Louisiana militia. It was traditional for free people of color to offer their military service to the government in power. They had done so since colonial times. It was expected of them, Ochs said, and it would have aroused suspicion had they declined. So Friends of Order became the Order Company in the Louisiana Native Guards, and Cailloux enlisted 100 men, including working slaves, runaway slaves and free black men. He was made their captain.

Neo-confederate revisionists do a disservice to the black men who heroically served their country during the Civil War, including men such as Captain Andre Cailloux, the first black Civil War hero and former member of the 1st Louisiana Native Guard (Confederate), who died leading his Union troops at the Battle of Port Gibson.

[Recursion]

77. Assuming that photo is dated correctly, these men were Confederate militia soldiers

N'est-ce pas?

[theHandpuppet]

80. I can see that debating you is pointless

So you may continue your neo-confederate spin party without me. What a shame that the real history of the 1st Louisiana and what happened to its men holds no interest for you as it doesn't fit so nicely with your agenda.

[Recursion]

82. You aren't even making clear what your point is

What I'm getting is:

1) This unit was disbanded (after this photograph was taken)
2) This unit was re-formed as a Union unit

I agree with both of those statements. What I don't see is what else you want me to conclude from that that would make me less "neo-confederate" (and considering how much effort I've put into removing the Confederate flag from public spaces in the South, that really amused me), because you aren't really saying.

[struggle4progress]

134. My link says THE PHOTO IS FALSIFIED

[struggle4progress]

124. That photo has been falsified. The original had a famous career.

Retouching History:
The Modern Falsification of a Civil War Photograph
Jerome S. Handler and Michael L. Tuite, Jr.
... In a photographic studio somewhere in Philadelphia, probably in early 1864, a group of black Union soldiers posed for a rather somber photograph with a white officer. We know nothing of this group, but it may have formed part of a unit that had been recently formed in the union army ... Sometime after its publication in either the Civil War Times Illustrated or The Embattled Confederacy, the photograph was scanned and digitally manipulated (we have not been able to establish which of the two publications was the source for this manipulation), to produce the photograph shown in Figure 4 with the caption “1st Louisiana Native Guard, 1861” that is being sold by www.rebelstore.com ... http://people.virginia.edu/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/essay.html

[SweetieD]

45. I find this claim dubious. Also if you are a slave, how do you "voluntarily" fight for your master?

The entire premise is absurd. Did Patty Hearst want to rob banks? Did black slaves want to fight for their master? I'm sure there was elements of Stockholm syndrome. Even if there were black soldiers how much of it could have been voluntary? If your master said fight with me or else? What would you do? Maybe your master might have said, fight with me and I will make sure you are free if the Confederacy wins. So you might think "hey that's a good deal." There is also the issue that many joined the Union and Confederacy simply for rations, something to eat, a place to stay. They could've joined for those reasons as well. But to think black soldiers wanted slavery and wanted to fight for the Confederacy to protect its institution is crazy.

[Recursion]

52. There were hundreds of thousands of free blacks in the South

Some of them were even slave owners.

[SweetieD]

57. Please leave that revisionist dribble somewhere else.

Yes there were blacks who bought family members out of slavery to give them freedom. They would've been listed as slave owners. But black people did not systematically own and profit off of black slaves. It just didn't happen as revisionist historians would want us to believe. It was white slave owners, some with large plantations and other white landowners with few slaves (2-10 slaves) who were responsible for the slave system in the south. The revisionism started during Reconstruction and continues to this day. And no actually most places there were not large free populations of blacks in the south. The free ones lived in fear of racial violence or being sold into slavery themselves. I'm African American and have worked on numerous African-American genealogies and have looked at more censuses, wills, court records, than I can count.

[Recursion]

61. "black people did not systematically own and profit off of black slaves"

If you mean, in aggregate, black people did not systematically own and profit off of black slaves, that's obviously true. If you're denying that any black people practiced commercial slavery for profit, that's ludicrous. It was concentrated in SC, MS, and LA, but it certainly happened (there's a pretty famous diary of a free African American from Natchez or Yazoo in which he records the whippings he administered to his slaves).

[CreekDog]

98. and that means?

or are you "just reporting"?

don't be a tool.

[theHandpuppet]

53. "Free Blacks" in Virginia during the Civil War

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Free_Blacks_During_the_Civil_War

And I wonder if this elementary school textbook makes mention of the nearly 6,000 black men from Virginia who fought with the USCT, or the thousands of white Virginians who fought with Union regiments.

[Radical Activist]

71. Does it mention that Tennessee

sent nearly as many soldiers to the union army as it did to the confederates? Probably not.

[Recursion]

78. My text book (in MS, written in the 80s) said that

Mentioned how states like Tennessee, Indiana, and Maryland were very divided (and Virginia was literally divided). It also repeated the myth that "Union County, Mississippi" seceded from the Confederacy (it wasn't actually formed until a decade later). Win some, lose some.

[theHandpuppet]

92. History gives lie to myth of black Confederate soldiers

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/trclark.htm

[MadHound]

111. Hmm, which to believe,

A community college history professor who writes an unsourced monograph, or the primary documents that I've seen, and copied, from state archives across the South:think:

[CreekDog]

114. what if we found evidence of Jewish people who fought for Hitler?

should that go in 4th grade textbooks too?


(yes, I referenced Hitler...what of it? :eyes: )

[whistler162]

120. Ummmm... like this......

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html

[CreekDog]

121. Should that be part of the 4th grade curriculum?

:shrug:

[whistler162]

122. No idea.....

[CreekDog]

123. This is an IQ test now...should it be in the 4TH GRADE CURRICULUM that some of Hitler's helpers

were Jewish.

4th grade curriculum?

there is a right and wrong answer to this.

you are teaching to 4th graders, you have limited time, you want them to understand the holocaust, you want them to appreciate it's gravity.

do you take time out of explaining the holocaust to explain that a few, a precious few of the people that helped him were Jewish?

this is exceedingly simple. if you don't know, do you have an opinion on anything whatsoever?

whether it should be in Virginia's 4th grade curriculum is the opening point of this thread and mine is similar question.

[rgbecker]

131. Spot On. we're talking 4th graders.

[whistler162]

136. Any talk about the death camps should include

the fact that Jewish prisoners did act as Kapo's. So talking about the history of the Wehrmacht and those who where considered impure by dint of their ancestry is valid. Whether the teacher and the book can provide the student with a understanding of the subject is up to the teacher and book publisher.

Don't throw IQ test around when you have just flunked a important question.

Google is your friend.

[CreekDog]

137. To 4th graders?

I didn't flunk.

And your score isn't as high as you seem to think.

[rgbecker]

130. Madhound, Please link us to your "Peer reviewed" publications.

I'm assuming you were able to get out something after all your study of primary documents. Maps to the lost monuments and battlegrounds you personally visited which you published must be available digitally or overwise. It may clear up a lot of what has been posted here on this thread, which seems to be of great interest to the DU community.

[Neurotica]

127. My VA school district just suspended use of this text

I guess it was used as supplemental material. A good decision.

[struggle4progress]

129. History gives lie to myth of black Confederate soldiers (Houston Chron 1999)

TRUMAN R. CLARK*
Clark is a professor of American history (now emeritus) at Tomball College

... all the Confederate soldiers captured by Union troops were white men. If there were "thousands" of black soldiers in the Confederate armies, why were none of them among the approximately 215,000 soldiers captured by the U. S. forces? ...

The South was running short of soldiers as the war dragged on, however, and some people began to suggest that it would be better to use slaves to fight than to lose. As late as three weeks before the Civil War came to an end, the members of the Confederate congress (and Lee and Davis) were hotly debating the question of whether to start using slaves in the Southern armies ...

The very accurate point made then by opponents of this legislation was, as one Georgia leader stated, "If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." Southern newspaper editors blasted the idea as "the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down," a "surrender of the essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization."

And what was that "essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization"? Let's listen to the people of the times. The vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said on March 21, 1861, that the Confederacy was "founded . . . its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based on this great physical, philosophical and moral truth" ...

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/trclark.htm

[BlueCheese]

138. I remember a passage...

... from James McPherson's critically acclaimed Battle Cry of Freedom, in which it mentions that toward the end of the war, the Confederacy was desperate enough to try arming blacks to fight for the South. They may have promised slaves their freedom if they fought. I don't remember how successful they were about it--obviously there's a giant moral contradiction there--but in the end the plan had little effect.