Comments on: How Much for the Black Confederate? http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/ Where History, Heritage, and Education Intersect Thu, 24 May 2012 16:37:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Andy Hall http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-26968 Andy Hall Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:46:06 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-26968 <blockquote>As they continue to try to say that Lincoln was the great emanicipator, that the south was the agressor, or that Lincolns whole purpose was to save the “union” are all lies repeated by historians sir…</blockquote>I fear you're making the common mistake of assuming that a sort of childlike, grade-school, Presidents Day pageant-understanding of Lincoln and the war, is what serious, professional historians actually believe and write. It really doesn't sound like you've read historians like McPherson and Foner and Donald, whose analyses of Lincoln are far more complex, and critical of the man, than you seem to be aware of. I agree that the hagiography of Lincoln as an unblemished saint is wrong. But seriously, it's not really different than the way Robert E. Lee is worshiped on the other side of the debate, or the way Lincoln is depicted as a purely evil, Machiavellian (and Marxist) tyrant. All these views are childish cartoons, and exceedingly unhelpful for anyone trying to look at the history of that era in a balanced way.

As they continue to try to say that Lincoln was the great emanicipator, that the south was the agressor, or that Lincolns whole purpose was to save the “union” are all lies repeated by historians sir…

I fear you’re making the common mistake of assuming that a sort of childlike, grade-school, Presidents Day pageant-understanding of Lincoln and the war, is what serious, professional historians actually believe and write. It really doesn’t sound like you’ve read historians like McPherson and Foner and Donald, whose analyses of Lincoln are far more complex, and critical of the man, than you seem to be aware of.

I agree that the hagiography of Lincoln as an unblemished saint is wrong. But seriously, it’s not really different than the way Robert E. Lee is worshiped on the other side of the debate, or the way Lincoln is depicted as a purely evil, Machiavellian (and Marxist) tyrant. All these views are childish cartoons, and exceedingly unhelpful for anyone trying to look at the history of that era in a balanced way.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-26964 Kevin Levin Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:37:31 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-26964 Brian, Thanks for the comment. I am not sure what secession or Lincoln has to do with this particular issue. You said: "The evidence you seek sir may no longer exist, was destroyed or has yet to be found… truth of the matter is, we can no more say there were NO such actions by blacks as we can say there were… it would be better to assume that little is known and leave it as possible rumors…" Actually, there is plenty of evidence to consider on this subject and it tells us a great deal about how the Confederate government and military attempted to utilize their enslaved population for military purposes. The problem is that the debate is now focused overwhelmingly on numbers and assumptions of slave loyalty. The relevant evidence for this, unfortunately, does not exist. Your speculation as to why this is the case is just that - speculation. Serious historians must work with the available evidence. Brian,

Thanks for the comment. I am not sure what secession or Lincoln has to do with this particular issue.

You said: “The evidence you seek sir may no longer exist, was destroyed or has yet to be found… truth of the matter is, we can no more say there were NO such actions by blacks as we can say there were… it would be better to assume that little is known and leave it as possible rumors…”

Actually, there is plenty of evidence to consider on this subject and it tells us a great deal about how the Confederate government and military attempted to utilize their enslaved population for military purposes. The problem is that the debate is now focused overwhelmingly on numbers and assumptions of slave loyalty. The relevant evidence for this, unfortunately, does not exist. Your speculation as to why this is the case is just that – speculation. Serious historians must work with the available evidence.

]]> By: Brian http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-26963 Brian Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:21:32 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-26963 The fact that you seem to be a historian yourself Mr. Levin or at least a scholar of the war between the states, as I refuse to define it as a civil war, your viewpoints are obviously very strong. I neither agree or disagree to the notion that black confederate soldiers existed...or that they took up arms in defense of the south, point being that history itself from this era is a bit skewed and has been redefined over time... some of which purposefully and in my mind with an attempt to cover the atrocities commited by the north. We have been taught from the time we were children that Abraham Lincoln was this great President, but as I devulge deeper and deeper into his words, actions and obvious intent I have come to believe he was nothing short of a tyrant. You will find it hard pressed today to be able to have a serious discussion about secession or state sovereignty that wont be countered by slavery... Although the two are connected to the war, they really are two separate and distinct subjects. So as you say that serious historians can not base much weight on online sources, my counter to you is that we as American's can take little to no weight in the texts written by those historians for their intentions over time have been anything but honest and truthful... As they continue to try to say that Lincoln was the great emanicipator, that the south was the agressor, or that Lincolns whole purpose was to save the "union" are all lies repeated by historians sir... So whether or not black soldiers actually picked up arms against the north may be supressed as an unpopular thought to further perpetuate the great Lincoln lie... The evidence you seek sir may no longer exist, was destroyed or has yet to be found... truth of the matter is, we can no more say there were NO such actions by blacks as we can say there were... it would be better to assume that little is known and leave it as possible rumors... The fact that you seem to be a historian yourself Mr. Levin or at least a scholar of the war between the states, as I refuse to define it as a civil war, your viewpoints are obviously very strong.
I neither agree or disagree to the notion that black confederate soldiers existed…or that they took up arms in defense of the south, point being that history itself from this era is a bit skewed and has been redefined over time… some of which purposefully and in my mind with an attempt to cover the atrocities commited by the north.
We have been taught from the time we were children that Abraham Lincoln was this great President, but as I devulge deeper and deeper into his words, actions and obvious intent I have come to believe he was nothing short of a tyrant.
You will find it hard pressed today to be able to have a serious discussion about secession or state sovereignty that wont be countered by slavery… Although the two are connected to the war, they really are two separate and distinct subjects.
So as you say that serious historians can not base much weight on online sources, my counter to you is that we as American’s can take little to no weight in the texts written by those historians for their intentions over time have been anything but honest and truthful…

As they continue to try to say that Lincoln was the great emanicipator, that the south was the agressor, or that Lincolns whole purpose was to save the “union” are all lies repeated by historians sir…

So whether or not black soldiers actually picked up arms against the north may be supressed as an unpopular thought to further perpetuate the great Lincoln lie… The evidence you seek sir may no longer exist, was destroyed or has yet to be found… truth of the matter is, we can no more say there were NO such actions by blacks as we can say there were… it would be better to assume that little is known and leave it as possible rumors…

]]> By: Frederick Douglass on Black Confederates, 1861: A Research Exercise | Crossroads http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-24452 Frederick Douglass on Black Confederates, 1861: A Research Exercise | Crossroads Wed, 02 Feb 2011 21:50:58 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-24452 [...] you are fascinated by shows such as History Detectives (a show I find “fascinating” for distinctly different reasons), and I’m sure many of you wish you could bring new things to light without, say, altering [...] [...] you are fascinated by shows such as History Detectives (a show I find “fascinating” for distinctly different reasons), and I’m sure many of you wish you could bring new things to light without, say, altering [...]

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-19902 Kevin Levin Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:59:50 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-19902 John, Thanks for the comment. I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Historians know plenty about the role of enslaved and free blacks in the Confederate war effort. What we know is that blacks did not serve, though a select few may have been able to maneuver around these restrictions. You said: "Whether they were actually put on the muster roll as soldiers or not is conjecture." It's not conjecture at all. Either they are on the muster rolls or they are not. I've studied this issue extensively and I've never actually been able to confirm a case of a black Confederate soldier. There is no serious historian who will give the stories found Online much weight because they are based on poor evidence and sketchy interpretation. Thanks again. John,

Thanks for the comment. I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Historians know plenty about the role of enslaved and free blacks in the Confederate war effort. What we know is that blacks did not serve, though a select few may have been able to maneuver around these restrictions. You said: “Whether they were actually put on the muster roll as soldiers or not is conjecture.” It’s not conjecture at all. Either they are on the muster rolls or they are not. I’ve studied this issue extensively and I’ve never actually been able to confirm a case of a black Confederate soldier. There is no serious historian who will give the stories found Online much weight because they are based on poor evidence and sketchy interpretation. Thanks again.

]]> By: John W. McBryde http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-19900 John W. McBryde Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:22:17 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-19900 I hate to say it but this controversy could go on until we are all dead and have joined our ancestors. The issue will still not be solved. Much of our history is not based on actual written fact but stories written after the fact based on one's interpretation what happened to them. Some history has been written by the victors of the war with a slant to favor them. As they wrote history to favor them, the Southern told history to favor their side. I am sure some slaves fought with their masters. Whether they were actually put on the muster roll as soldiers or not is conjecture. The next time you look at a Teddy Bear remember it came into being because of a Black Bear hunt in the Mississippi swamps with President Theodore Roosevelt and a famed bear hunter who killed around 3000 bears in his lifetime---Holt Collier. By the way, he could pick a apple off your soldier right or left-handed. He sharpened that skill while serving in the 9th Texas Cavalry during the CW. Did I mention he started out as a slave to Howell Hinds? I hate to say it but this controversy could go on until we are all dead and have joined our ancestors. The issue will still not be solved. Much of our history is not based on actual written fact but stories written after the fact based on one’s interpretation what happened to them. Some history has been written by the victors of the war with a slant to favor them. As they wrote history to favor them, the Southern told history to favor their side. I am sure some slaves fought with their masters. Whether they were actually put on the muster roll as soldiers or not is conjecture. The next time you look at a Teddy Bear remember it came into being because of a Black Bear hunt in the Mississippi swamps with President Theodore Roosevelt and a famed bear hunter who killed around 3000 bears in his lifetime—Holt Collier. By the way, he could pick a apple off your soldier right or left-handed. He sharpened that skill while serving in the 9th Texas Cavalry during the CW. Did I mention he started out as a slave to Howell Hinds?

]]> By: Our Love of the Confederacy and the South - Page 3 - Political Forum http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-15579 Our Love of the Confederacy and the South - Page 3 - Political Forum Mon, 03 May 2010 13:47:32 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-15579 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> By: Jere Krischel http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-15481 Jere Krischel Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:40:15 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-15481 Looking forward to your book and article. I've always noticed with my study of various historical periods that the truth always ends up more interesting and nuanced that I ever imagined when I began. Looking forward to your book and article. I’ve always noticed with my study of various historical periods that the truth always ends up more interesting and nuanced that I ever imagined when I began.

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-15479 Kevin Levin Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:34:20 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-15479 It probably is the case that from the outside it looks like a question of numbers, but that is because most people simply do not understand the complexity surrounding how slaves were utilized during the antebellum period and how the war challenged the master-slave relationship. There are a small number of cases that are being shared via the internet that supposedly demonstrate the truth of the individual claim as well as claims about total numbers. Most of these people are not familiar with how to interpret the kinds of evidence (postwar photographs of blacks at Confederate reunions and pension records to name just two) that allow us a window into the lives of these men. My next book project will be a study of this issue and I am planning a magazine article on a prominent "black Confederate" for one of the Civil War magazines. It probably is the case that from the outside it looks like a question of numbers, but that is because most people simply do not understand the complexity surrounding how slaves were utilized during the antebellum period and how the war challenged the master-slave relationship. There are a small number of cases that are being shared via the internet that supposedly demonstrate the truth of the individual claim as well as claims about total numbers. Most of these people are not familiar with how to interpret the kinds of evidence (postwar photographs of blacks at Confederate reunions and pension records to name just two) that allow us a window into the lives of these men. My next book project will be a study of this issue and I am planning a magazine article on a prominent “black Confederate” for one of the Civil War magazines.

]]> By: Jere Krischel http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-15478 Jere Krischel Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:20:00 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-15478 I appreciate what you're saying. It still does look like from the outside that the issue is about numbers, though. You've got some people very passionately insisting that their one example is technically true given caveats X, Y, and Z. And then you've got the point of view that seems to say, "even if that's true, it's not representative, so there's no point in proving the example". When pushed to it, it appears that those people insisting on their one example are still willing to accede they don't have proof of any larger representation (though they may suspect it), and those people insisting that any single anecdotal example is not representative therefore extra suspect are still willing to admit that any one instance might be true (though they may doubt it). Now this is completely putting aside any other ulterior motives that might be ascribed (knee-jerk defense of common wisdom, or wishful reinterpretation of common wisdom), which I think for the most part people try to avoid getting dragged into. Anyway, very interesting stuff, mahalo for your coverage of it! I appreciate what you’re saying. It still does look like from the outside that the issue is about numbers, though. You’ve got some people very passionately insisting that their one example is technically true given caveats X, Y, and Z. And then you’ve got the point of view that seems to say, “even if that’s true, it’s not representative, so there’s no point in proving the example”. When pushed to it, it appears that those people insisting on their one example are still willing to accede they don’t have proof of any larger representation (though they may suspect it), and those people insisting that any single anecdotal example is not representative therefore extra suspect are still willing to admit that any one instance might be true (though they may doubt it).

Now this is completely putting aside any other ulterior motives that might be ascribed (knee-jerk defense of common wisdom, or wishful reinterpretation of common wisdom), which I think for the most part people try to avoid getting dragged into.

Anyway, very interesting stuff, mahalo for your coverage of it!

]]> By: Kevin Levin http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-15475 Kevin Levin Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:08:39 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-15475 Jere, In some cases, as you note, we must be silent. In the case of Silas Chandler we know that he was a slave so it makes no sense whatsoever to describe him as "serving with" or "fighting with" anyone. As a slave, however, he was indeed serving. As I've pointed out over and over the issue isn't really about numbers. The problem is that the people who are arguing for this do not understand the broader issues relating to slavery and even basic facts about Confederate policy on the enlistment of blacks into the army. Jere,

In some cases, as you note, we must be silent. In the case of Silas Chandler we know that he was a slave so it makes no sense whatsoever to describe him as “serving with” or “fighting with” anyone. As a slave, however, he was indeed serving. As I’ve pointed out over and over the issue isn’t really about numbers. The problem is that the people who are arguing for this do not understand the broader issues relating to slavery and even basic facts about Confederate policy on the enlistment of blacks into the army.

]]> By: Jere Krischel http://cwmemory.com/2010/01/19/how-much-for-the-black-confederate/#comment-15474 Jere Krischel Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:05:34 +0000 http://cwmemory.com/?p=6136#comment-15474 Interesting thread. I'm wondering why we have to assume anything -> why can't we just say we don't know? It seems clear that anyone who wanted to make a firm claim to a specific number of freed blacks serving as confederate soldiers would have a fairly high burden of proof, but it doesn't really seem like anyone is disputing the fact that it did happen at least a little. It's almost as if the argument that goes back and forth is primarily because of the different frames being put around the question -> the facts are the same, but people are talking with different semantic understandings. Maybe Silas Chandler could be described as "possibly fighting with" or "possibly serving with" the Confederate army. Perhaps the caveat "most likely was enslaved", but certainly we cannot say such things with complete confidence. Interesting thread. I’m wondering why we have to assume anything -> why can’t we just say we don’t know? It seems clear that anyone who wanted to make a firm claim to a specific number of freed blacks serving as confederate soldiers would have a fairly high burden of proof, but it doesn’t really seem like anyone is disputing the fact that it did happen at least a little. It’s almost as if the argument that goes back and forth is primarily because of the different frames being put around the question -> the facts are the same, but people are talking with different semantic understandings.

Maybe Silas Chandler could be described as “possibly fighting with” or “possibly serving with” the Confederate army. Perhaps the caveat “most likely was enslaved”, but certainly we cannot say such things with complete confidence.

]]>