The whole quote can be found in the Confederate Congressional Record which I already posted:robertp6165 said: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).
The "Second" section seems to be contrasting the "white population" in general with "the negro" in general, not just slaves. Another entry in the Congressional Record from around the same time:2. 261 Nov. 8, 1864
"Mr. Foote offered the following resolution to wit:
'Resolved, That this House does cordially concur in that portion of the views expressed by the President in his late annual message touching the employment of slaves by the Confederate Government in connection with the present war, which is embraced in the following propositions:
First. The 'general levy and arming of the slaves for duty of soldiers' would be inexpedient.
Second. 'Until our white population shall prove insufficient for the armies we require and can afford to keep in the field, to employ as a soldier the negro, who has merely been trained to labor, and as a laborer the white man accustomed from his youth to firearms' would neither be wise nor advantageous.
Third. 'Should the alternative ever be presented of submission [subjugation] or of the employment of the slave as a soldier,' then such employment would be right and proper."
The fourth section of the resolutions concerns using negroes as cooks, etc.
Now, I'm not sure what it was that was "defeated" here, the original proposal to allow "free negroes and slaves to work on fortifications and perform other labor connected with the defenses of the country", or the proviso saying that neither blacks or slaves "have arms placed in their hands". In any case, it would seem strange to me if either the proposal or the proviso would have been suggested if there was already an accepted policy of allowing free blacks to fight for the Confederacy, which would presumably also grant them the right to "work on fortifications and perform other labor connected with the defenses of the country".4. 504 Jan. 27, 1865
"Mr. Garland moved that the rules be suspended and that the Senate bill (S.129) 'to provide for the employment of free negroes and slaves to work on fortifications and perform other labor connected with the defenses of the country' be taken from the Calendar and made the special order for the morning hour.
Amendments were then proposed.
5. 507 Jan. 27, 1865
"Mr. Ramsey submitted the following amendment.
Insert after the amendment just adopted the following:
'Provided, That said slaves shall not be armed or used as soldiers.'
6. 508 Jan. 27, 1865
" Mr. J.M. Leach submitted the following amendment:
Add the following proviso to the end of the third section:
' Provided further that in no events shall any portion of said slaves or free negroes so impressed have arms placed in their hands, or be mustered into the Confederate States service or be used at any time as soldiers in said service.'"
Was defeated 48 to 21.
Jesse said:Do you agree that the records of confederate veterans' organizations historically made no mention of black confederates?
Were these members recognized specifically as armed soldiers?robertp6165 said:No. Especially since the United Confederate Veterans HAD BLACK MEMBERS!
I'm not saying either of these things, I'm just quoting arguments others have made. As I said earlier, I have no particular knowledge of this subject, I was not even aware of the question until I saw it on one of these threads a few days ago. In fact I agree that these two arguments don't seem compatible, so one of the two authors is presumably mistaken about what Confederate organizations were saying at the time, I don't know which one. I did see a quote here from the page I referred to in my last post which seemed to support the idea that at least some Confederate organizations were denying that they had used black soldiers:robertp6165 said:Also, it is amusing that you should bring forth this quotation...when, on another thread, you also posted this quote...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.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?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.
1. Confederate Veteran, Vol. 18, Feb. 1910, page 62, article by F.T. Roche, Georgetown, TX.
In this article Roche comments on an article that appeared in the National Tribune, Oct. 7, 1909, about African American troops in the Civil War. What greatly upsets him is that the editor of the National Tribune mentions the precedent of African Americans fighting in the Continental Army in the American Revolution. Roche writes, "...statements which I believe grossly erroneous. The purpose of the whole article is stated in the closing paragraph.
"In no history of the United States that I have read have I seen the statement that 'Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia had colored regiments' in the Continental army. I do not believe it to be a fact, and I ask the Veteran to have the subject investigated, that the truth may be made known. I regard the enlistment of negroes in the army of the United States as one of the most infamous things done in the War between the States, and I shald be glad to known that it had no precdedent in our ealier history. Let the facts be known. "
S.A. Cunningham, the editor of the Confederate Veteran decided to have this letter published. This whole article would make no sense if there had been any "Black Confederate" soldiers.
No need for personal attacks. In fact I didn't read the whole Michael Kelly piece (just as you apparently didn't read the entirety of the Confederate Congressional Records page I linked to), because it looked like a very long list of individual recollections and my desire to spend a lot of time studying this subject isn't that great, so I thought I could get the gist of it by reading just a few. But reading it a little more carefully, I assume the section you're talking about with records of prisoners-of-war and casualties is the one at the beginning--unfortunately I don't know enough about civil war military record-keeping to know one way or another whether the blacks listed in the prisoners of war and casualties are likely to have been soldiers or whether whoever wrote the records just didn't bother to list their duties.robertp6165 said: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.
As for quotes from black Confederates, I only saw two (but please point out any others if I missed them), and one said he was "a body servant to the master", so there's only one quote I saw of a black Confederate who clearly said he was doing shooting, and even there he said that he was originally brought in just to tend and ride horses, so it's not clear whether he was armed in an official way (given a rank and so forth) or an unofficial way:
"One day Marster Bob comes to me and says, 'Jim, how you like to jine de army? You see, de war had started. I says to him 'What does I have to?' And he says, "Tend hosses and ride 'em' So de first thing I knows, I's in de army away off east from here [Southest Texas].' . . . After I gits in de army, it wasn' so much fun 'cause tendin' horses and ridin' wasn' all I does. No, sar, I has to do shootin' and git shooted at! . . . You's heard of de battle of Independence [Missouri]? Dat's whar we fights for three days and nights. I'se not tendin horses that time. Dey gives me a rifle and sends me up front fightin' , when we wasn' runnin! . . . I gits shot in de shoulder in dat fight . . . 'nother time we fights two days and nights . . ."
I was not aware that cooks, hospital orderlies, musicians and so forth were considered "soldiers", in the Civil War or modern times. You may be right since I don't know much about military protocol, but in any case I don't think historians dispute that significant numbers of blacks were in the Confederate army doing these sorts of duties, the controversy is over how many were actually armed and fighting. I think you said you thought the figure was around half of the 90,000 estimate someone else gave, but would you say the number who were armed and fighting might have been significantly smaller? Also, do you think it's possible that of those who saw combat, many or most were admitted to the army with non-combat duties and only armed in an unofficial way?robertp6165 said: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?
Again, there's no need to be rude. I just don't want to scour entire books for the sake of an internet debate, if you think these sources are relevant then it should be your responsibility to point out the relevant sections.robertp6165 said: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.
That's possible, but you just said earlier that many people use the word "soldier" in a more expansive way than just the people using weapons, so it also seems possible the white authorities had access to records of their specific duties (I'd imagine they'd have to have some independent verification that the person submitting the application was actually part of the army) and wanted this to be clear on the form. In any case, I don't know whether the position of historians is that no blacks were officially allowed to have arms, or just that very few (much less than 90,000) were; if the latter, this quote wouldn't really contradict the mainstream view since it doesn't tell us much about the frequency of armed black soldiers.robertp6165 said: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.