Comments on: Earl Ijames’s “Colored Confederates”

By: RUDOLPH YOUNG

RUDOLPH YOUNG — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:46:28 +0000

You can never provide enough documentation because people have already made up their minds to believe or not to believe.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:15:51 +0000

Mr. Young,

Thanks for the comment. Thousands of slaves were impressed into the Confederate army by individual states as well as the federal government. They were forced to work as slaves. In other words, we should see their work during the Civil War as an extension of their status as slaves. Nothing changed. You, on the other hand are a citizen of this country and as a citizen have an obligation to serve in the armed forces under certain conditions. The pension that Cunningham received was not for his service in the army as a solider. A number of states offered pensions to former slaves who did work for the army. The difference between being drafted and impressed is a crucial distinction regardless of the work you did while in the army.

Thank you for your service to this country and for taking the time to write. I hope that answers your question.

By: RUDOLPH YOUNG

RUDOLPH YOUNG — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:50:26 +0000

In the book, Black Southerners in Gray ,I never used the term “black Confederate soldier”. There was a man called Wyatt Cunningham of Union County , NC who was a teamster in the Confederate army. He was wounded at the Catawba River in Lancaster County ,South Carolina. In 1931 Wyatt recieved a Confederate pension. He was African American. I on the other hand was a truck driver in Vietnam. I was never wounded and i never recieved a pension. I was drafted and Wyatt was impressed into service. if Wyatt was not a soldier does it follow that i was not a soldier also?
Rudolph Young

By: Jere Krischel

Jere Krischel — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:12:56 +0000

Oh, I fully agree on your characterization of a narrow lens, no doubt. What I’ve appreciated about his work is the attention given to an otherwise overlooked point of view. Although he’s not a historian, and he’s definitely got several wagonloads of axes to grind with all kinds of people, it seems that past that, there’s a lot of good information he’s presented.

It actually reminds of of a book called “The Vegetarian Myth” by Lierre Keith, a militant lesbian who blames everything bad in the world on the male species, but still does a good job of dissecting some of the motivations for veganism. It takes a while to get past the overheated rhetoric, but there’s a lot of good information there.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:05:22 +0000

Jere,

The problem is that DiLorenzo is not a historian, but an economist with a strong libertarian bent. There is nothing wrong with being a libertarian until you begin to view everything in the past through that narrow lens. His latest book blames our evolution into a strong nation state on Alexander Hamilton.

By: Jere Krischel

Jere Krischel — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:50:31 +0000

I’ll definitely check it out. I’ll freely admit that DiLorenzo writes from a perspective of conspiracy theory that may be a bit overblown, but he provides adequate references for his assertions and quotes, and taken with a grain of salt, should probably be required reading for any introduction to the Civil War. His hyperbole aside, DiLorenzo brings up some very uncomfortable facts that are not dealt with very well in other treatments I’ve seen.

My understanding is that even DiLorenzo has some appreciation for David Donald’s “Lincoln Reconsidered”. I’ll have to put both of Donald’s books on my reading list.

By: Jere Krischel

Jere Krischel — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:36:39 +0000

I guess the pay-off is a re-evaluation of the very black and white (no pun intended) view of the Civil War as having righteous Northerners (who were very bad to black people too), and evil Southerners (who weren’t all hateful abusive slave owners). It forces us to confront the idea that the Civil War was a dramatic victory of Hamiltonian principles over Jeffersonian ones -> which is uncomfortable. I enjoy the fact that the Supreme Court can rule that discrimination is illegal, and have it be the law of the land, but I’m also wary that the Supreme Court can rule that the commerce clause allows for any manner of coercion and taxation. I’ve been raised to adore my American Empire, but I’m also suspicious of expansive centralized power.

Frankly though, I don’t think we need to “prove” one way or another how many freed colored confederate soldiers there were who were fighting for their freedom without the baggage of race relations -> we should acknowledge that it did happen at some non-zero rate, though, and ponder on what that means for how we see the Civil War.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:33:35 +0000

DiLorenzo is not a historian and his grasp of the fundamental questions and historiography related to Lincoln is flawed. Start with David H. Donald’s biography of Lincoln.

By: Jere Krischel

Jere Krischel — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:29:00 +0000

My understanding is that limiting slavery’s expansion was desirable in order to keep the West preserved for whites only. Lincoln was an active proponent of “colonization”, the deportation of blacks back to Africa or other countries. The proximate cause of the Civil War was the conflict between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, as specifically brought to bear by tariffs that served to transfer wealth from the exporting south to the importing north.

Another interesting note was the Union army response to the Emancipation Proclamation -> mass desertions. Although the end of slavery certainly was noble, I’m not entirely convinced that the Civil War was the best way to go about it, nor that those that started the Civil War really cared that much about the topic.

By: Jere Krischel

Jere Krischel — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:25:33 +0000

Another good start is “The Real Lincoln” by DiLorenzo. Very interesting stuff to read.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:39:00 +0000

Thanks for the reference. I actually cited it in a previous post at the time of the magazine’s publication. I appreciate your involvement on this forum.

By: Tom Lowry

Tom Lowry — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:35:31 +0000

Foolish me. I guess some are that deluded. When I think of the “birthers,” and the flat-earthers, I may have muddied the waters.

For my article about some REAL colored Confederate soldiers, see North & South magazine, June 2009, pages 58-60.