CSA Movie--poorly researched, horribly done

[Jesse]

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 whole quote can be found in the Confederate Congressional Record which I already posted:

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.

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:

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.

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".

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!

Were these members recognized specifically as armed soldiers?

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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 . . ."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Since this section of your reply seems to contain the gist of our dispute, let me reply to this, in lieu of responding directly to your entire post.

Those of us who argue for the recognition of the service of blacks in the Confederate armies, at least to my knowledge, rarely claim that there were large numbers of blacks engaged in combat. We freely acknowledge that most black Confederate soldiers were employed in non-combat support roles. We simply argue that this does not make them any less "soldiers" than the white soldiers who were performing similar duties in the Union army. Or indeed, any less soldiers than the vast majority of BLACK UNION SOLDIERS who never saw combat and were instead used as labor battalions performing menial duties to free white soldiers for front-line combat. To state otherwise is simply to employ a double standard.

As for the argument that "the white authorities [who were changing entries on black pension applications] had access to records of their specific duties and wanted this to be clear on the form," as well as the denials that black troops existed by some writers in the CONFEDERATE VETERAN, I would respond by pointing out that this was the height of the Jim Crow Era. The white authorities were not interested in showcasing the contributions of blacks to the Confederate cause, because they were busy holding up the black man as the reason why the South was invaded and destroyed during the war and the reason why she suffered twelve years of Radical Reconstruction afterward. Blacks were usually depicted as traitors to the South during those years, not as patriots. If blacks had been depicted as loyal patriots, it would have been much harder to justify the punitive laws aimed at keeping them down.

Nevertheless there is ample evidence that the United Confederate Veterans...the men who actually did serve with them...did recognize the service of blacks. They were invited to Confederate Veterans reunions, they were given membership cards and medals. There is even one famous story of the 1913 Blue-Gray reunion at Gettysburg. The planners of the event had set up tents for the veterans, including a section reserved for black Union veterans. But when a group of black Confederate veterans showed up, they were at a loss as to what to do...no plans had been made for housing them. The white Confederate veterans solved the problem by taking them into their own tents for the duration of the event.

 

[Straha]

Thes movie is a piece ay garbage nae worthy ay th' title ah. it bears th' sam relation tae real ah as shitty 30 cent pulps bear tae guid science fiction loch heinlein.

 

[wkwillis]

There were three million black men in the Confederacy. It is of historical record that at least one free black staffed regiment existed in Louisiana, enrolled first on the Confederate side, and then on the Union side. Got to have been more of them in the other states.
I mean, there were some "half jewish" soldiers in the Wehrmacht, too. Not very many, but some.

 

[Michael E Johnson]

There were three million black men in the Confederacy. It is of historical record that at least one free black staffed regiment existed in Louisiana, enrolled first on the Confederate side, and then on the Union side. Got to have been more of them in the other states.
I mean, there were some "half jewish" soldiers in the Wehrmacht, too. Not very many, but some.

Yes but Nazi Germany wasn't out to exterminate Jewish people it ony wanted to establish a Greater Germany so all ethnic Germans in Europe would have a safe place to call home
As a Confederate apologist he will bever admit or except that the South's main fight was to preserve slavery. Of course,although its cynical and disgusting to do it, one of the best ways to "prove" that the South didnt fight to preseve slavery is to say -look there were some blacks that fought on the South's side so if it was was fighting to preserve slavery and if slavery was that bad why did any blacks fight for it ? This absurd line of reasoning is quite obviously why the myth of black Confederate is so important to Confederate apologists because it goes to the heart of their unsavory cause-I just wish they could be man enough to admit it.

 

[Ghost 88]

Yes but Nazi Germany wasn't out to exterminate Jewish people it ony wanted to establish a Greater Germany so all ethnic Germans in Europe would have a safe place to call home

6 million people of the Jewish faith would disagree with you on this. The Holocaust did happen it was caused by the Nazi Party who had control of Germany at the time it occured. To equate the Souths defense of slavery with the systematic extermination shows a bias that is just as bad as if I said slavery was good for the slaves,I don't argue and won't argue that slavery was good,I will argue if you make an all incompassing statement that all southreners are racists or fought to keep slavery.They didn't fight for slavery they fought for thier independence.

 

[wkwillis]

We have source literature by southerners in the form of diaries that they were surprised when their slaves disappeared after being freed by the Union. They had thought that the slaves were gratefull for their master's guidance and stuff. There is a good deal of source literature from that period. Letters, journals, histories, autobiographies, etc.

 

[MrP]

1) While slavery was certainly an evil institution, I think that we focus on that these days to the exclusion of everything else that was going on in American history, some of it far worse than slavery. Just to give one example...the virtually genocidal policies being followed by successive United States Governments toward the Native Americans from the inception of the republic to the early years of the 20th Century. Why is it that we have people like Mr. Stirling et al who can stand up on a soapbox and declare the Confederacy a "stench in the nostrils of decent men," yet we never hear anyone making similar statements about the U.S. government and it's atrocious conduct toward Native Americans?

Because it's a discussion about the CSA, her policies, laws and history? I greatly doubt that anyone could or would express support for the USA's genocidal, brutal and immoral wars against Native Americans. That the USA's actions against Native Americans were also a "stench in the nostrils of decent men," does not alter the fact that slavery also was. One might equally make the point that Vlad the Impaler's massacres or many of King Theodore of Abyssinia's deeds were "stench[es] in the nostrils of decent men."

2) Slavery in the Confederacy only existed for four years (it lasted 80 years under the United States); the Confederacy never imported a single slave from Africa (unlike the United States); the Confederacy was not the only slaveholding nation on the North American continent at the time (the U.S. also had slaves, and those slaves were held until after the end of the war); and the Confederacy had, by the end of the war, made the decision to abandon slavery in order to secure it's independence (something the U.S. REFUSED to do during the American Revolution). So why is the Confederacy singled out for opprobrium for the entire history of slavery in the United States?

She isn't. The USA pre-ACW is greatly culpable. However, since the vast majority of slavery existed in the states that were to make up the CSA, she incurs the vast majority of disdain both for her actions before and during the ACW. The point about the Confederacy abandoning slavery is also disengenuous. Lincoln's dissolution of slavery in the CSA was simultaneously good publicity with Europe, humane, strategically sound and legally questionable.

The South abandoned slavery out of sheer desperation, hoping to acquire good relations with Europe and improve a poor strategic position. As we know, Lincoln had delayed making his declaration because the Union was doing poorly in the war, and he didn't want the announcement misconstrued. He waited for a victory. The South waited till they were on the ropes, and hadn't a hope.

3) As I have said elsewhere, it was not a desire to preserve the institution of slavery itself which actually was the issue driving Southern secession. If that had been the case, then they could have included a provision in the Constitution declaring that slavery could never, ever, be abolished. They didn't do that. Instead, they left the decision up to the individual States. In essence, they were simply protecting their right to handle the issue in the same manner, and for the same reasons, that the Northern States had abolished slavery...by state action, when slavery was no longer an economically profitable institution (the Northern abolitions were not driven by humanitarianism...they abolished slavery because it wasn't profitable anymore). So what they were fighting for was THE RIGHT OF SELF GOVERNMENT. And how, pray tell, does that make them a "stench in the nostrils of decent men," any more so than the Northern States who only abolished slavery when it ceased to be economically profitable for them?

While I do not believe that the South fought only for slavery, it was a matter deeply connected with her fight for independence. I can't subscribe to the notion that the CSA was acting in a manner similar to the North in attempting to protect her right to decide such issues as slavery. Whereas Northern states eliminated it internally, the CSA went so far as to stick two fingers up to the rest of the nation, and leave. There was no evidence that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery prior to his election. The South feared her loss of power in the government system, disliked things like the railroad crossing the nation being built in the North, and that in a few elections' time, slavery might vanish. Seizing what seemed an opportune moment, they left.

American abolitionists campaigned to dispose of slavery on humanitarian grounds. The lack of profitability in that field was indubitably a factor in the swift passage of legislation. But so were compassion and differing populations. The South had many more slaves, and feared a disaster for her economy if compelled by the Federal government to manumit them.

While I do not feel that comparisons between the Confederacy and Nazi Germany are profitable, I will make a slight detour to make a point. In WWII Britain was not an egalitarian place, rights for women, racial and sexual minorities were severely curtailed. Nazi Germany had similar problems, but also murdered millions of people. So Nazi Germany was a greater stench.

The USA and the CSA had restricted rights for all of the above. The South also held millions of men, women and children in immoral bondage. Before the separation, the USA had less opprobrium directed against her for her part in slavery, because large parts of the country were opposed to this cruel trade. After the separation, the new CSA was greatly identified with slavery. The remnant USA now had an even larger preponderance of non-slaveholders. Since slavery is the issue we're discussing, it's fair to say that while the USA (with its smaller but still sad enslaved population) was still a distasteful smell, the CSA (with its large enslaved population) was now a "stench in the nostrils of decent men," more so than the North.

The actual reason for abolition or for one side having more slaves than the other is less important than the fact that the South's "peculiar institution" was a lot bigger than the North's, despite the smaller population of the South. One may make allowances for the predominance of southern slavery based on economic and social factors or for the southern states' right to self-determination on this issue.

This does not alter the fact that following secession, the South had a proportionally and numerically larger slave population than the North. As you write above, "slavery was certainly an evil institution," and although you may believe we focus on it too much, and to a certain extent I agree there could be greater focus on other areas, there was more of this evil in the CSA than the North.

I mean, there were some "half jewish" soldiers in the Wehrmacht, too. Not very many, but some.

Not just the Wehrmacht, but elsewhere in Germany's military, like the Kriegsmarine. The military would close ranks around good warriors to protect them. I recall hearing of one Jewish officer who visited his father in a concentration camp. The imprisoned father asked why he was fighting for the Nazis, and his son answered that he was not. He was fighting for Germany. Misguided but honourable chap, evidently.

An equally sad thing is the toning-down of anti-semitic rhetoric prior to Hitler's election, which acquired funds for the party from Jewish interests. Of course, we all know what followed his election.

 

[Jesse]

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.

Since this section of your reply seems to contain the gist of our dispute, let me reply to this, in lieu of responding directly to your entire post.

Those of us who argue for the recognition of the service of blacks in the Confederate armies, at least to my knowledge, rarely claim that there were large numbers of blacks engaged in combat. We freely acknowledge that most black Confederate soldiers were employed in non-combat support roles. We simply argue that this does not make them any less "soldiers" than the white soldiers who were performing similar duties in the Union army.

So you're saying the dispute over black confederates is not primarily a disagreement about historical facts at all, but just a statement that the blacks in non-combat roles are deserving of more recognition? I don't have any particular objection to this (although after the emancipation proclamation, my guess is that most of the blacks in the army who understood what it meant were probably not rooting for their own side to win), but I think that most of the people making the case for large numbers of black confederates actually do dispute the factual content of the mainstream view, and claim that large numbers of blacks served in combat roles in the Confederacy. Just look at the information you posted from Michael Kelly on the other thread, for example--virtually all of it was an attempt to present evidence of blacks in combat roles, as far as I can tell. For example, his concern in the first section is to show that records of captured blacks suggest they were more than just cooks, personal servants, etc.:

At Confederate Mound at Indianapolis, Indiana, there are 26 Black Southerners, four Hispanics, and one Cherokee at rest with their white Confederate comrades-in-arms. Although the Blacks were listed universally as "Negro Servants" through the convention of Northern mindset, you will find those which cannot be explained as "servants."

Since the death rate at Camp Morton was about 10% we can surmise that about 250 Black Southerners passed through there or were held there:

KENTUCKY
Christian, J. (Negro), Co. D, Morgan's 2nd Cavalry, d. 11/22/63
Vance, J.W. (Negro), CSA Mail Carrier, d. 3/14/64

MISSISSIPPI
Littleton, Solomon (Negro), 3rd Inf., d. /3/62

VIRGINIA
Mayo, Henry (Negro), Co. G 36th Inf., d. 3/23/62

UNKNOWN UNITS
Frazier, George (Capt) (Negro), CSA, d. 1863*

Considering that the other Black Southerners listed were not listed in relation to any Confederate unit or with a specific occupation such as "Mail Carrier" it is unlikely these men so uniquely listed were personal servants, cooks, or the like. As for George Frazier* it is likely we will never know how or why he became listed with the rank "Captain" following his name as none of the other Black Southerners buried there had any rank specified as if it might have been their master's rank.

And virtually all of the anecdotes and recollections also seem intended to show evidence of armed black confederates:

The Daily Journal, Evansville, Indiana, November 1, 1862 : "Now the news comes to us that seven regiments of negroes have been drilled by the rebel authorities to man their fortifications in North and South Carolina...seven regiments [7000] of negroes, armed and equipped, had arrived at Wilmington, N.C., to occupy the various rebel fortresses during the sickly season. Is any one so ignorant as to suppose that the operations of these negroes are to be confirmed to the sickly season? Not a bit of it. They will be used in all seasons..."

Letter of Private Frank Bailey, 34th New York Infantry Regiment to his brother in Middleville, New York: - "West Point, Virginia, 12 May 1862 - I hear that the Rebels sent out a Regt. of niggers to fight our men and that they were as naked as when they were born, except the brogues on their feet, and they incited to all sorts of cruelty.

...

Frederick Douglass, Douglass' Monthly, IV (Sept. 1861), pp 516 - "It is now pretty well established that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants, and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas and they are probably there still."

...

From James G. Bates' letter to his father reprinted in the 1 May 1863 "Winchester [Indiana] Journal" (the 13th IVI ["Hoosier Regiment"] was involved in operations around the Suffolk, Virginia area in April-May 1863 ) - "I can assure you [Father], of a certainty, that the rebels have negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters, and the boldest of them all here is a negro.

...


"Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette" 12 March 1863 refers to the 5 March 1863 fight around Thompson's Station, near Franklin, TN The 85th Indiana Volunteer Infantry reported: "NEGRO REGIMENTS IN THE REBEL ARMY - During the fight the battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by [in italics] two rebel negro regiments. [end italics] Our artillerists double-shotted their guns and cut the black regiments to pieces, and brought their battery safely off. . . .

This was just from the first few sections of the long Michael Kelly you quoted, but it seemed to me that at least 3/4 of the records he referred to were describing armed black confederate troops, and the others were usually at least referring to black confederates in uniform which may have been meant to suggest they were armed troops too. And in any case, what would be the point of looking through historical records in the first place if he didn't think the mainstream position was factually wrong, as opposed to just wrong in its terminology (not calling cooks and servants and such 'soldiers') or in the amount of recognition it gives to blacks who were in any way involved with the Confederate army? Also, from the other articles I read, I got the strong impression that the controversy as a whole was mainly about the same sort of factual issues Michael Kelly seemed concerned with. So if you don't want to get into such a factual dispute, you might want to make that clear when quoting people like Kelly and others who apparently do.

As for the argument that "the white authorities [who were changing entries on black pension applications] had access to records of their specific duties and wanted this to be clear on the form," as well as the denials that black troops existed by some writers in the CONFEDERATE VETERAN, I would respond by pointing out that this was the height of the Jim Crow Era. The white authorities were not interested in showcasing the contributions of blacks to the Confederate cause

I wasn't saying they wanted to "showcase" anything. In fact, what I was thinking is that they would want to replace "soldier" with something more specific like "cook" or "servant" because they wanted to make it clear these people were not armed and were not ranking officers...they may have been concerned that if blacks were receiving official pensions as "soldiers", that could be misinterpreted in a way that they would see as bad for the reputation of the Confederate army.

Nevertheless there is ample evidence that the United Confederate Veterans...the men who actually did serve with them...did recognize the service of blacks. They were invited to Confederate Veterans reunions, they were given membership cards and medals. There is even one famous story of the 1913 Blue-Gray reunion at Gettysburg. The planners of the event had set up tents for the veterans, including a section reserved for black Union veterans. But when a group of black Confederate veterans showed up, they were at a loss as to what to do...no plans had been made for housing them. The white Confederate veterans solved the problem by taking them into their own tents for the duration of the event.

Well, even the biggest racists would usually be tolerant of "good" blacks who knew their place and showed the proper respect and loyalty towards whites. At the same time, I'm not claiming that every white southerner of the time was the worst kind of racist (although I doubt many of that time were capable of treating black people fully as equals either).