Jesse said:
Really?
This page which I linked to earlier offers a number of pieces of evidence, such as:
Yes, lets take a look at this "evidence," shall we?
Jesse said:
If the South allowed free black men to serve in their own regiments, why would they react this way to the use of free black men in Northern regiments? Do you dispute that such legislation was in fact passed by the Confederate Congress?
This legislation came about as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation, which was viewed in the South as an incitement for slave rebellion, and black Union soldiers were viewed as slaves in rebellion against the Confederacy. Black soldiers serving the Confederacy were viewed as Confederate soldiers, not slaves in rebellion. One can accept black men serving in one's own regiments while being angry that the enemy would try to raise a slave rebellion against you.
Jesse said:
Note that this quote argued against employing as a soldier "the negro", which would cover free blacks as well as slaves.
Actually what the quote says is saying that a "GENERAL LEVY and arming of slaves as soldiers would be inexpedient." You have to twist things around a bit to apply what the Congressional resolution said to service by free blacks. The part where it says "negroes" instead of slaves is clearly cherry picked and edited (note that we don't see the beginning of the sentence and also the "..." in the middle of it). What the Congress was saying was that to conscript and arm large number of slaves would not be a good idea. It doesn't say that small numbers (and believe it or not, 45,000 to 90,000 is a small number when you consider that about 1 million men served in the Confederate army during the course of the war) would be a bad idea, or that such were banned.
Jesse said:
Do you agree that the records of confederate veterans' organizations historically made no mention of black confederates?
No. Especially since the United Confederate Veterans HAD BLACK MEMBERS!
Also, it is amusing that you should bring forth this quotation...
The other basic fact is that the United Confederate Veterans, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, The Museum of the Confederacy, and numerous Confederate veteran authors did not mention black Confederate soldiers until very recently....Certainly these organizations who made great emphasis on the loyal slave and servant during the Civil War would have been eager to make mention of black Confederate soldiers.
when, on another thread, you also posted this quote...
Check the date of a publication and its author(such as Charles Wesley) and note the publication source. The height of the reconciliation period, where both the North and South sought to paper over their past differences, was 1880-1920. The South sought justification for its actions and the loss by creating the fiction of the Lost Cause; the North looked the other way and didn't challenge this patent nonsense (or the growth of Jim Crow laws and the KKK) in order to achieve the larger goal of an effective mending of the body politic. Much nonsense was published during this period and it must be closely examined for its accuracy.
So on the one hand, you are saying that the fact that Confederate organizations supposedly didn't publish material in the late 19th Century and early 20th century documenting Black Confederate service disproves the notion of black Confederates. And then on the other, you are saying that if they did publish such material, it was only because they were "creating the fiction of the Lost Cause?" So basically you're saying they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, is that it? Respectfully, sir, you can't argue both sides of the fence and you can't have it both ways.
Jesse said:
Finally if there were Black Confederate soldiers, where is the record of Black Confederate prisoners of war, Black Confederate casualties, or wounded Black Confederate soldiers? Where are the war diaries, memoirs, of a single black Confederate soldier? This lack of documentary evidence from the time, as opposed to anecdotal evidence (which in many cases heard secondhand, which does not necessarily distinguish between black soldiers and blacks serving as cooks, laborers, etc., and which almost invariable involves whites recounting stories of black confederates rather than black confederates speaking for themselves), would obviously be pretty significant to historians.
There is documentary evidence of black Confederate prisoners of war and black Confederate casualties in the piece by Michael Kelley which you have attacked. There is also testimony given by black Confederate soldiers themselves. It truely amazes me how one can read this piece, see the evidence, and still deny the existence of the evidence. Obviously you have a dread malady called "Selective Vision Disorder" (a mental block which prevents you from seeing things that might challenge your own belief system). Or perhaps it is a case of Closed Mind Disease (a condition which prevents the mind from absorbing information contrary to one's own belief system)? Either way, it is preventing you from recognizing what has been clearly documented for you.
And as far as whether the evidence distinguishes between "black soldiers and blacks serving as cooks, laborers, etc.," I would argue that there is no real difference. There were men who served in the Union Army who were assigned as cooks, teamsters, farriers, hospital orderlies, musicians, etc. All of these men wore blue uniforms and are considered soldiers, even though they rarely, if ever, engaged in combat. Why is it that a white man wearing a blue suit doing these duties is a soldier, and a black man wearing a gray suit is not? Methinks there is a double standard in play here.
Jesse said:
And what specific information is he [Webb Garrison] citing? Do any of these books support the claim of large numbers of black Confederates?
Why don't you read it for yourself? Oh, that's right...since you have a severe case of either "S.V.D." (Selective Vision Disorder) or "C.M.D." (Closed Mind Disease), you probably couldn't see the passages cited by Mr. Kelley anyway, so it's probably a useless exercise for you.
Jesse said:
Were pensions exclusively given to people who had served as soldiers, or were they also given to people who served the Confederate army in other capacities? If you say it's the former, can you give some evidence of this?
See above. Also, black historian Ervin Jordan, author of BLACK CONFEDERATES AND AFRO YANKEES IN VIRGINIA, points out that "During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ‘soldier’ is crossed out and ‘body servant’ inserted, or ‘teamster’ on pension applications.” So even if blacks were soldiers, the white authorities who administered pension applications were covering that fact up.
