More on Black Confederates (1 Viewer)

[Scott]

A friend that works at Harvard sent me the link. A good read before you paint those black CS units for your war game army.


http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/?p=...ail&utm_campaign=09_06_11_a%20(1)&utm_content

 

[jazzeum]

Good article. In the Disunion section, I mentioned the case of John Parker. I believe (but am not certain) that the South authorized enlistment of black soldiers in March or April 1865.

 

[mestell]

Another interesting read . . . .
:smile2: Mike

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

 

[Scott]

Another interesting read . . . .
:smile2: Mike

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

Thanks Mike. The Confederate Memorial statue is interesting. The two black figures are in a subservient or back ground position.

 

[mestell]

Thanks Mike. The Confederate Memorial statue is interesting. The two black figures are in a subservient or back ground position.

Granted the one female figure is in a subseviant role taking the responsibility of the soldier's child as he marches off (that scene was probably played out thousands of times by both black and white women), but the other figure is portrayed as a soldier marching off with the rest of his company.
:smile2: Mike

 

[Scott]

But like I wrote...in the background. They were there alright. A few years later the Brazilians feed over 8500 slaves that would fight the Paraguayans for them. If one lived it was a good chance to be free even if not equal to folks you were fighting for.

 

[tdubel]

Another interesting read . . . .
:smile2: Mike

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

Mike,
Don't waste the typing. Because if some donkey from Harvard writes it then by God, that is the truth isn't it? I just love this 150th Anniversary, it is just wonderful to read rewrites and revisions every anniversary.

Seriously, I enjoy reading and learning about the battles, the personalities, the tactics, the sheer will OF BOTH SIDES, but it seems like nobody wants to write about that anymore. Every article I have read lately is an attack or an apology and centers around slavery, not exactly what I care about. Am I a racist? Not to my knowledge, but I bet some would paint me as one because I don't hang and agree on every word that is written about it. Quite frankly, it just doesn't rank up on my radar high list.


TD

 

[jazzeum]

Well, if you bothered to read some instead of going for the knee jerk reaction, maybe that would help the understanding a little bit. Stauffer is not just some donkey from Harvard. Have you ever read any of his stuff? That might be the first order of business. If slavery is not what you care about well don't read about it. The Civil War is big enough to cover a whole lot of topics.

Interestingly, Southern governors in the past few years (such as Georgia and Alabama) have come out and said that was what the war was about.

 

[tdubel]

Well, if you bothered to read some instead of going for the knee jerk reaction, maybe that would help the understanding a little bit. Stauffer is not just some donkey from Harvard. Have you ever read any of his stuff? That might be the first order of business. If slavery is not what you care about well don't read about it. The Civil War is big enough to cover a whole lot of topics.

Interestingly, Southern governors in the past few years (such as Georgia and Alabama) have come out and said that was what the war was about.

Brad,
You are missing my point which is probably the problem of trying to type on the internet. I get tired of reading the same thing over and over and most articles on this go round, deal with the same issue. It just gets old to me. Right now, it is the politically correct thing to do, so there you have it, cmon, we all know politicians are never a great guage!

You can believe what you want to believe, but I will never categorize this war being about one issue, YES slavery was one of the issues, but you can't seriously believe that it was the only one. There were a number of major issues on all fronts, political, economic (not just the impact of slavery), cultural, etc.

Look at today's world, it is still North vs South in a lot of areas. Geography is and always has been a game changer. New Yorkers and Alabamians live in 2 different worlds on a lot of levels, it just is what it
is. Neither is right or wrong.

Back to Stauffer, I would call him very opinionated and of course he is going to write to support his opinion. Look, find me an article from an idiot from any Southern State stating that slavery wasn't a cause and I would say the same thing about that. I just get sick of reading the same old same old, it is either an attack on the "neo-Confederates" or an apology that is meaningless or a denial that is insanity.

See what I am trying to say now?

Tom

 

[Fusilier]

Mike,
Don't waste the typing. Because if some donkey from Harvard writes it then by God, that is the truth isn't it? I just love this 150th Anniversary, it is just wonderful to read rewrites and revisions every anniversary.

Seriously, I enjoy reading and learning about the battles, the personalities, the tactics, the sheer will OF BOTH SIDES, but it seems like nobody wants to write about that anymore. Every article I have read lately is an attack or an apology and centers around slavery, not exactly what I care about. Am I a racist? Not to my knowledge, but I bet some would paint me as one because I don't hang and agree on every word that is written about it. Quite frankly, it just doesn't rank up on my radar high list.


TD

I would venture that your interest in the conflict is because your understanding of the war is deeper and multi-faceted. You are not racist at all. Does everything written about World War Two have to deal with the Holocaust? Over course not.

You simply enjoy reading and learning about the aspects you mention because it means something to you. The vast majority of people don't know anything about the war besides 'it was the one about slavery'. They might be able to identify Lee or Lincoln, but that is about it. Nor do they care to broaden their horizons. As with most history, the greater meaning and lessons are lost except to those who want to fully invest their time in learning.

In my history masters program right now, we are discussing bias in historical writing. And by bias, I don't mean anything connected to race, but instead, the written misrepresentation of history. The idea you identified is a great demonstration of how one element of an event can be commonly know as the causational factor of an event. This over-emphasis is at the expense of all other relevent, important factors in the event. In this case, the over-emphasis on slavery has been so complete, that most people have lost all other interest in pursing knowledge about the war. Was slavery probably the over-arching cause of the war? Probably, but scholarship of, research into, and writings about the war should not end just because an author can not find any connection to slavery! As we know, too many people are using the 150th anniversary to push agendas, and the slavery issue makes too tempting a target for these same writers to pass up.

Sorry to go on the soap-box, but I have been discussing this same thing in class for the last two weeks!^&grin

Noah

 

[jazzeum]

Brad,
You are missing my point which is probably the problem of trying to type on the internet. I get tired of reading the same thing over and over and most articles on this go round, deal with the same issue. It just gets old to me. Right now, it is the politically correct thing to do, so there you have it, cmon, we all know politicians are never a great guage!

You can believe what you want to believe, but I will never categorize this war being about one issue, YES slavery was one of the issues, but you can't seriously believe that it was the only one. There were a number of major issues on all fronts, political, economic (not just the impact of slavery), cultural, etc.

Look at today's world, it is still North vs South in a lot of areas. Geography is and always has been a game changer. New Yorkers and Alabamians live in 2 different worlds on a lot of levels, it just is what it
is. Neither is right or wrong.

Back to Stauffer, I would call him very opinionated and of course he is going to write to support his opinion. Look, find me an article from an idiot from any Southern State stating that slavery wasn't a cause and I would say the same thing about that. I just get sick of reading the same old same old, it is either an attack on the "neo-Confederates" or an apology that is meaningless or a denial that is insanity.

See what I am trying to say now?

Tom

Tom,

Most of the articles I'm reading these days don't talk about slavery and I'm referring to the Times' Disunion blog, which gets a lot of mentions on civil war sites.

As far as causes, when you mention economic, political it's all tied up with slavery. No one at that time, even the Fire Eaters, would have said otherwise. Why do you think Republicans were called "Black" Republicans. No historian today even bother debates that it wasn't about slavery. There were hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in it, in Southern wealth and Wall Street investments. When you have that much at stake, darn right you're going to fight for that way of life.

Not sure what you're saying in the last para but like I said there's a lot to read about without getting worked up about it.

 

[tdubel]

Tom,

Most of the articles I'm reading these days don't talk about slavery and I'm referring to the Times' Disunion blog, which gets a lot of mentions on civil war sites.

As far as causes, when you mention economic, political it's all tied up with slavery. No one at that time, even the Fire Eaters, would have said otherwise. Why do you think Republicans were called "Black" Republicans. No historian today even bother debates that it wasn't about slavery. There were hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in it, in Southern wealth and Wall Street investments. When you have that much at stake, darn right you're going to fight for that way of life.

Not sure what you're saying in the last para but like I said there's a lot to read about without getting worked up about it.

Brad,
Last paragraph, I was basically saying there are a lot of opinions/agendas from all ends, I would more likely than not call most of them nonsense no matter which side of the coin they fell on. You can support any argument with facts/context. I am really not that worked up over it, I just get tired of the same old drumbeat.

I don't disagree that slavery was an issue, it just was not the only one in my opinion. You have a different opinion and you are entitled, it doesn't bother me, again simple Geography!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, it would not be fun if we all agreed on everything!

Tom

 

[jazzeum]

Tom,

Guess we'll save it for Chicago

 

[Scott]

.........

Sorry to go on the soap-box, but I have been discussing this same thing in class for the last two weeks!^&grin

Noah

Noah, Folks that have or are studying the period SHOULD be the ones on the soap-box. Thank you.

 

[mestell]

Mike,
Don't waste the typing. Because if some donkey from Harvard writes it then by God, that is the truth isn't it? I just love this 150th Anniversary, it is just wonderful to read rewrites and revisions every anniversary.

Seriously, I enjoy reading and learning about the battles, the personalities, the tactics, the sheer will OF BOTH SIDES, but it seems like nobody wants to write about that anymore. Every article I have read lately is an attack or an apology and centers around slavery, not exactly what I care about. Am I a racist? Not to my knowledge, but I bet some would paint me as one because I don't hang and agree on every word that is written about it. Quite frankly, it just doesn't rank up on my radar high list.


TD

Oh don't I know Tom. I even hesitated to add to this thread knowing that the path it would go down would be a little rough. As you can see, I haven't added to much of my "Two cents" worth of opinion. As far as my interests in the war, I prefer to read about and study the life of the common soldier, what he wore and how he wore it, what he used and why, and what his general thoughts were on the war. Its amazing how often Hollywood got it all wrong . . . just watched the Horse Soldiers again the other day with John Wayne and William Holden. Certainly an entertaining movie but it was fraught with historical inaccuracies for both sides, uniforms, and equipment. That's to bad too because I sometimes think that many manufacturers of ACW figures use movies like the Horse Soldiers, et al, for their research. Oh well . . . Looking forward to seeing you once again in Chicago . . . have a safe trip . . .
:smile2: Mike

 

[jazzeum]

I would venture that your interest in the conflict is because your understanding of the war is deeper and multi-faceted. You are not racist at all. Does everything written about World War Two have to deal with the Holocaust? Over course not.

You simply enjoy reading and learning about the aspects you mention because it means something to you. The vast majority of people don't know anything about the war besides 'it was the one about slavery'. They might be able to identify Lee or Lincoln, but that is about it. Nor do they care to broaden their horizons. As with most history, the greater meaning and lessons are lost except to those who want to fully invest their time in learning.

In my history masters program right now, we are discussing bias in historical writing. And by bias, I don't mean anything connected to race, but instead, the written misrepresentation of history. The idea you identified is a great demonstration of how one element of an event can be commonly know as the causational factor of an event. This over-emphasis is at the expense of all other relevent, important factors in the event. In this case, the over-emphasis on slavery has been so complete, that most people have lost all other interest in pursing knowledge about the war. Was slavery probably the over-arching cause of the war? Probably, but scholarship of, research into, and writings about the war should not end just because an author can not find any connection to slavery! As we know, too many people are using the 150th anniversary to push agendas, and the slavery issue makes too tempting a target for these same writers to pass up.

Sorry to go on the soap-box, but I have been discussing this same thing in class for the last two weeks!^&grin

Noah

Noah,

As you know cause and effect is both important and will always occupy a major share of the attention, as I came to realize when I was in the masters history program at Vanderbilt before the law beckoned.

However, as a cursory review of LSU's Civil War Book Review or the university presses catalogues of the likes of LSU, University of North Carolina or Kansas show, there are many fertile areas for mining. One problem that I have is one avenue leads down to the next and there is just not enough time to explore everything. As soon as I finish what I'm reading (Don Fehrenbacher's book on Lincoln, Prelude to Greatness), I will be exploring Freehling's books on Secessionism and border state unionism, a fascinating topic.
Since both Tom and Mike mentioned their reading interests, mine is principally Lincoln.

Over time I would like to hear more about your program since my hope when I retire is to go back and get my masters in history (starting from scratch though )

Brad

 

[Scott]

Well as far as that the story was in a Harvard magazine gives it a source of some standing to most of the civilized world. (Heck...Harvard trained surgeons put my daughter's heart back together.) The merit of the article stands or falls on the writer's ability to convince by evidence. The rightness of the Confederate cause is really within the US Constitution and the acceptance of slavery in the Bible and expressed in the founding documents of the Confederates. That a few thousand black people fought or supported the Confederate cause has to be looked at on the individual level which is hard unless they themselves left letters or diaries. To co-opt those people in OUR time as some justification for the past doesn't work unless there is documentation from those black soldiers that they were fighting for Confederate independence, states rights, tariffs laws or westward expansion of slavery as an economic system.

Perhaps the black Confederates took the chance to try to better themselves or gain acceptance with in the only society they knew. This subject can be discussed within the limits of what WE know and are interested about during this period of history without hints of hidden agendas or provocation.

 

[Fusilier]

Noah,

As you know cause and effect is both important and will always occupy a major share of the attention, as I came to realize when I was in the masters history program at Vanderbilt before the law beckoned.

However, as a cursory review of LSU's Civil War Book Review or the university presses catalogues of the likes of LSU, University of North Carolina or Kansas show, there are many fertile areas for mining. One problem that I have is one avenue leads down to the next and there is just not enough time to explore everything. As soon as I finish what I'm reading (Don Fehrenbacher's book on Lincoln, Prelude to Greatness), I will be exploring Freehling's books on Secessionism and border state unionism, a fascinating topic.
Since both Tom and Mike mentioned their reading interests, mine is principally Lincoln.

Over time I would like to hear more about your program since my hope when I retire is to go back and get my masters in history (starting from scratch though )

Brad

Brad-
I kind feel like I intruded into the conversation you guys had going, but it literally was just what we are discussing in my Historical Research Methods class. By way of clarification, I don't see anything wrong with the original article that started this thread. I read it and found it to be uncontroversial. I was just responding to the sentiment that I think Tom was expressing, in that there is an over-emphasis on slavery in relation to writings on the Civil War. I would agree with you that slavery was the primary cause, as both states rights and economic concerns can be explained as off-shoots to that 'institution'.

However, I do sympathize with what Tom was saying. I think there are a lot of articles being put out now that only focus on the Civil War because it allows the author to bring up issues of race and slavery itself. As Tom said, there are so many other aspects to study in the conflict besides that one. That is why I mentioned bias in some historical writing on the period, as authors who only talk about slavery are simply promoting bias in their writings. By not explaining any other factors, even if they are off-shoots of the slavery issue, leads to knowledge bias in their readers understanding of the war. As you say, cause and effect. The root cause, a war over slavery, is better understood if the author also elabotates on the states rights and economic effects, which in turn, fully elaborate on the slavery issue.

I will send you a pm about the program I am currently in.

Noah

 

[tdubel]

Oh don't I know Tom. I even hesitated to add to this thread knowing that the path it would go down would be a little rough. As you can see, I haven't added to much of my "Two cents" worth of opinion. As far as my interests in the war, I prefer to read about and study the life of the common soldier, what he wore and how he wore it, what he used and why, and what his general thoughts were on the war. Its amazing how often Hollywood got it all wrong . . . just watched the Horse Soldiers again the other day with John Wayne and William Holden. Certainly an entertaining movie but it was fraught with historical inaccuracies for both sides, uniforms, and equipment. That's to bad too because I sometimes think that many manufacturers of ACW figures use movies like the Horse Soldiers, et al, for their research. Oh well . . . Looking forward to seeing you once again in Chicago . . . have a safe trip . . .
:smile2: Mike

Mike, you too, looking forward to chatting in Chicago. Horse Soldiers, great movie, but I agree, not exactly historical! Also , that is an intersting study you have on the commond soldier, neat idea and something I am not strong in at all.

Tom

 

[tdubel]

Brad-
I kind feel like I intruded into the conversation you guys had going, but it literally was just what we are discussing in my Historical Research Methods class. By way of clarification, I don't see anything wrong with the original article that started this thread. I read it and found it to be uncontroversial. I was just responding to the sentiment that I think Tom was expressing, in that there is an over-emphasis on slavery in relation to writings on the Civil War. I would agree with you that slavery was the primary cause, as both states rights and economic concerns can be explained as off-shoots to that 'institution'.

However, I do sympathize with what Tom was saying. I think there are a lot of articles being put out now that only focus on the Civil War because it allows the author to bring up issues of race and slavery itself. As Tom said, there are so many other aspects to study in the conflict besides that one. That is why I mentioned bias in some historical writing on the period, as authors who only talk about slavery are simply promoting bias in their writings. By not explaining any other factors, even if they are off-shoots of the slavery issue, leads to knowledge bias in their readers understanding of the war. As you say, cause and effect. The root cause, a war over slavery, is better understood if the author also elabotates on the states rights and economic effects, which in turn, fully elaborate on the slavery issue.

I will send you a pm about the program I am currently in.

Noah

Noah, thanks, yes that was the gist of what I was trying to say. I will have you type my replies from now on!!!

Also, just so everybody knows, Brad and I are very good friends, he is a lawyer and I am a cpa, but really a negotiator by trade, so it is usually a good discussion as we have different views!!

TD