Replies

Re: "Your argument was just silly. It conjured up a picture of African American Confederate troops in ranks or on the line and then rushing back to play servant when officers approach. Armies don't run like that. If we are too rely on what's most logical and documented, it won't work."

You are misreading me. Most of the time armies are idol and officers often make work to keep the troops out of trouble. Armies spend a few minutes or hours in thrilling exhilaration followed by days and weeks of boredom and dull marching. I was describing the bulk of their time, I gather you are focused on the exciting part. If you have a beef with my point take it up with the writer of the book. He is a black history professor at UVA so I hope your credentials can match his.

Re: " but the notion of hundreds or thousands of African-Americans signing up because of Southern patriotism and being mustered into service is unproven and untrue, though it is true that in the last desperate days of the war Black troops were being drilled in Richmond and Petersburg."

The later half of your statement contradicts the first half, except the numbers. They know who many of these people are. All the Southern states gave pensions to their Confederate veterans. After a few years they gave these Black men pensions as well. It was less money but it is a matter of record. How many? I do not recall but I think Jordan's book has the numbers. Again I recommend you read his book.

Re: "Reviews of the book you mentioned, Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., have pointed up its incongruities. Jordan jumps on every possible scrap of evidence that might support what he wants to believe and assumes his view is proven."

It is true his book has critics, who doesn't these days but assigning motivation is a blade that cuts both ways. If you want to assign a motive to his thinking then you invite the same treatment to his critics. Read the book. Much of what he writes is not about the men on the front, most of it is the lives of blacks in general living at the time. His facts conform to other books that deal with these topics. Two other books I recommend is "Slave Counterpoint". It deals with the early years of slavery until about 1800. It also has a narrow focus, limited to Virginia, Maryland and South Carolina. The 3rd is "The Plantation Mistress" This one is focused on the role of women and was designed to conform to a book on the role of women in New England. It is limited to events from 1830-1860 and the 3 states of Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia. All describe much the same about their lives other than differences in time and some attitudes that evolved, but you can see that changing attitude in the 3 books. These other two do not address slaves fighting for the Confederacy since they do not deal with that war but they do show his work is valid and conforms to research done by others one including a very liberal Northern woman.

If you want to think my argument is silly I suggest you take it to the writers of scholarly books. Since none of these books were written by segregationist or white supremacist and are recent works, while the data they all used is not. I would have more respect for your opinion if you could cite a source for your conclusion. You asked for a source from me and you got it but now it is your turn. Because so far the only substance to your position is..............?

The later half of your statement contradicts the first half, except the numbers.

Again, that's a silly response. A concession or qualification isn't a contradiction. It's a clarification. And such qualifications are necessary when making arguments.

"Except for" numbers and dates a lot of manifestly false statements can be made to look true. But changing the dates or numbers changes the statement. It doesn't make the original one true.

Some scholars have said that at the very end of the war, with defeat staring them in the face, the Confederate Army gave guns to African-Americans and drilled them for battle. That's a far cry from the sort of exaggerated and untrue claims that some have made about "Black Confederates." And such scholars don't make questionable assumptions about pro-secessionist or pro-confederate feeling among those who may have been called up for such duty, in contrast to your own account.

I took issue with your argument because it was unlikely and unsupported. When you named your source I pointed out that others had questioned its accuracy. Now you come up with sources that don't prove your argument. They may be interesting and may or may not be accurate, but don't do much to prove Jordan's claim about the Civil War.

To tell the truth, I don't know how many African-Americans may have fought for the Confederacy. Much depends on how one defines "fight." But some of your claims and Jordan's look pretty weak. Like a lot of people, I'm also not convinced by the "so it means the Confederacy was alright" spin you want to give such claims, or by the notion that if Black Americans worked for the Confederates it was because of Southern patriotism, rather than compulsion or personal loyalty. I'd just as soon wait until I see a more reliable account before I decide what I believe.