Thursday, November 18, 2010

Official records say

The Official Records constitute the most extensive collection of primary sources of the history of the war. They include selected first-hand accounts, orders, reports, maps, diagrams, and correspon...dence drawn from War and Navy Department records of both Confederate and Union governments.Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805, Lt. Col. Parkhurst's Report (Ninth Michigan Infantry) on General Forrest's attack at Murfreesboro, Tenn, July 13,1862: "There were also quite a number of Negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day." Official Records, Series 1, Volume 15, Part 1, Pages 137-138, report of the Union commander: "Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements." Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLIX, Part n, pg. 253 - April 6, 1865 "The rebels [Forrest] are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Miss., and the negroes are all enrolled in the State." Official Records, Series I, Vol. XIV, pg. 24, second paragraph, Colonel B. C. Christ, 50th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, official report of May 30, 1862, Pocotaligo, SC., "It is also difficult to state the force of the enemy, but it could not have been less than from 600 to 800. There were six companies of mounted riflemen, besides infantry, among which were a considerable number of colored men."
Official Records, Vol. XIII, Chapter XXV, pg. 688 - "...We are not likely to use one negro where the rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling negroes to fortify the rebellion." - September, 1862

Official Records, Correspondence, Etc., Vol. II, pg. 218 - "...they [the Confederacy] have, by means of sweeping conscription, gathered in countless hordes, and threaten to overwhelm the armies of the Union, with blood and treason in their hearts. They flaunt the black flag of rebellion in the face of the Government, and threaten to butcher our brave and loyal armies with foreign bayonets. They arm negroes and merciless savages in their behalf." - July 11, 1862 - Rich D. Yates, Governor of Illinois

Official Records, Vol. XIX, Chapter XXXI, pg. 617 - Record of the Harper's Ferry Military Commission (U.S. Army)
Question. "Do you know of any individual of the enemy having been killed or wounded during the siege of Harper's Ferry?" Answer. "I have strong reasons to believe that there was a negro killed, who had wounded 2 or 3 of my men. I know that an officer took deliberate aim at him, and he fell over. He was one of the skirmishers of the enemy[Confederate, ed.], and wounded 3 of my men. I know there must have been some of the enemy killed." Question. "How do you know the negro was killed?" Answer. "The officer saw him fall." Official Records: Series 2, Vol. 6, Part 1 (Prisoners of War) p. 17-18 - "...before one single negro or mulatto was mustered into the U.S. service you had them organized in arms in Louisiana. You had Indians and half-breed negroes and Indians organized in arms under Albert Pike, in Arkansas. Subsequently negroes were captured on the battle-field at Antietam and delivered as prisoners of war at Aiken's Landing to the Confederate authorities, and receipted for and counted in exchange."
Official Records, Vol. XLI, Chapter LIII, pg. 670 - PATTERSON, [November] 24, 1864 - "Colonel MAUPIN: I have arrived with my squad on return. Captain McClanahan has gone on the upper road for Pilot Knob; will all arrive there to-morrow. No rebel force below. We have turned up eleven bushwhackers to dry and one rebel negro. No man hurt on our side. The men are generally well."

Official Records, Series 1, Volume 4, p.569 - Report of Colonel John W. Phelps, First Vermont Infantry: CAMP BUTLER, Newport News, Va., August 11, 1861 - "SIR: Scouts from this post represent the enemy as having retired. they came to New Market Bridge on Wednesday, and left the next day. They-the enemy-talked of having 9,000 men. They were recalled by dispatches from Richmond. They had twenty pieces of artillery, among which was the Richmond Howitzer Battery, manned by negroes. . . Their numbers are probably overrated; but with regard to their artillery, and its being manned in part by negroes, I think the report is probably correct. "

Official Records, Series 1, vol 35, Part 1 (Olustee), Page 442-443, S.C., FLA., AND ON THE GA. COAST. Chapter XLVII - Report of Bgen Asboth, USA: "...when I proceeded to Milton, Fla., a distance of 9 miles, and after rebuilding the destroyed bridge on the Arcadia Creek, I came upon the enemy, about 100 strong, and consisting of Captain Goldsby's (Alabama) cavalry company and a new militia infantry company, mounted...Having received early information of the arrival of two army steamers at Bayou Mulatte, the enemy had sent his stores on seven wagons in time toward Pollard, and seemed prepared and decided to accept a fight in the camp at the upper end of the town, but fled, upon our impetuous charge, in all directions. We pursued them closely for 7 miles, and captured 4 privates of Goldsby's company and 3 colored men, mounted and armed, with 7 horses and 5 mules with equipments, and 20 Austrian rifles."

Official Records, Series I, Vol. XVII, Chapter XXIX, Pg. 635-637 - December 28, 1863 - "...It had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy's sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men...The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55. - Very respectfully, your obedient servant, D. STUART, Brigadier-General, Commanding"

Official Records, Series I, Vol. III, Correspondence, etc., pg 767-768 - "CAMBRIDGE, September 4, 1863. His Excellency A. LINCOLN, President of the United States: "...excitement here growing out of the recruiting of colored troops, and as some of the recruiting officers are acting rather indiscreetly, I fear, by taking slaves in their recruits, and the slaves of loyal as well as disloyal enlist slaves as well as free people is creating a great deal of anxiety among the people...we ought to use the colored people, after the rebels commenced to use them against us.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010


                         It's NOT OVER !

"Camp near Camden, S. C., Feb 26, 1865. My dear wife--I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious time in this State. Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was the order of the day. The chivalry [meaning the Honourable & Chivalrous people of the South] have been stripped of most of their valuables. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, forks, &c., are as common in camp as blackberries. The terms of plunder are as follows: Each company is required to exhibit the results of its operations at any given place--one-fifth and first choice falls to the share of the commander-in-chief and staff; one-fifth to the corps commanders and staff; one-fifth to field officers of regiments, and two-fifths to the company. Officers are not allowed to join these expeditions without disguising themselves as privates. One of our corps commanders borrowed a suit of rough clothes from one of my men, and was successful in this place. He got a large quantity of silver (among other things an old-time milk pitcher) and a very fine gold watch from a Mrs DeSaussure, at this place. DeSaussure was one of the F. F. V.s of South Carolina, and was made to fork over liberally.. Officers over the rank of Captain are not made to put their plunder in the estimate for general distribution. This is very unfair, and for that reason, in order to protect themselves, subordinate officers and privates keep back every thing that they can carry about their persons, such as rings, earrings, breast pins, &c., of which, if I ever get home, I have about a quart. I am not joking--I have at least a quart of jewelry for you and all the girls, and some No. 1 diamond rings and pins among them. General Sherman has silver and gold enough to start a bank. His share in gold watches alone at Columbia was two hundred and seventy-five. But I said I could not go into particulars. All the general officers and many besides had valuables of every description, down to embroidered ladies' pocket handkerchiefs. I have my share of them, too. We took gold and silver enough from the damned rebels to have redeemed their infernal currency twice over. This, (the currency), whenever we came across it, we burned, as we considered it utterly worthless. I wish all the jewelry this army has could be carried to the "Old Bay State". It would deck her out in glorious style; but, alas! it will be scattered all over the North and Middle States. The damned niggers, as a general rule, prefer to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we only wanted the able-bodied men, (and to tell the truth, the youngest and best-looking women). Sometimes we took off whole families and plantations of niggers, by way of repaying secessionists. But the useless part of them we soon manage to lose; [one very effective was to "shoot at their bobbing heads as they swam rivers" after the army units crossed over], sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways. I shall write to you again from Wilmington, Goldsboro', or some other place in North Carolina. The order to march has arrived, and I must close hurriedly. Love to grandmother and aunt Charlotte. Take care of yourself and children. Don't show this letter out of the family. Your affectionate husband, Thomas J Myers, Lieut., P.S. I will send this by the first flag of truce to be mailed, unless I have an opportunity of sending it at Hilton Head. Tell Sallie I am saving a pearl bracelet and ear-rings for her; but Lambert got the necklace and breast pin of the same set. I am trying to trade him out of them. These were taken from the Misses Jamison, daughters of the President of the South Carolina Secession Convention. We found these on our trip through Georgia." End of Letter. The letter was addressed to Mrs. Thomas J. Myers, Boston, Massachusetts. end

Thursday, September 9, 2010

The TRUTH about Black confederates

There’s an old saying about war that the victors write the history. In no case is it truer than the war of northern aggression.

Twelve Reasons We Don’t WANT Believe in Black Confederates

Many people reject the evidence that thousands of the South's 3,880,000 blacks, both free men and slaves, labored and fought, willingly, for the Southern Confederacy.

Why do they not believe, given the many accounts in the Official Records, contemporary newspaper reports, photographs, pension application records, and recollections of black Southerners? There are many instances of official records where a black confederate soldiers rank was scratched out and TEAMSTER or COOK written in. MANY black veterans of the confederate army attended and were welcomed as brothers at re-unions of the grand armies after the war. In addition there were Black soldiers ( including black officers ) INTERGRATED into the CONFEDERATE ARMY from the BEGINNING of the war. Blacks were excluded from the U.S.ARMY until the North was in danger of losing because of draft resistance. Even then Blacks were SEGREGATED into all black units led by WHITE officers.

Here are 12 explanations.

1. It may force us to change what we believe. Changing our beliefs is troublesome and effortful. Most of us have always believed that both the Confederate and Union armies were all white, just like they are shown in the 1994 film Gettysburg.

2. It is not what most others believe. The leading guideline for adult behavior in questionable moral areas, according to the classic work of psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is "What would people think?" (i.e., "what are other people doing"). We base our behavior—and ideas—on what others are doing, so that we appear "normal." Since few others believe in black Confederates, we will not either, in order to fit in with the majority.

3. It might contradict a prejudice. Are we ready to accept that a black man could be every bit as brave, and every bit as dedicated, as a white man in combat? Rejecting the claim that blacks fought is consistent with a prejudice against blacks. Perhaps those who reject out of hand the idea of black Confederates are expressing their own prejudice against blacks.

4. It complicates our simple stereotype of blacks vs. whites as separate groups. But in truth, are these groups more alike than different? Maybe seeing them as different groups allows us to perceive differences that are not really there? A more complex perception is of one larger group with many diverse individuals, not of two groups of similar individuals. The simpler perception that fits a black versus white stereotype is consistent with the view that there were no black Confederates.

5. How do we now teach Civil War history in 10 minutes? How do we summarize the reasons for the war in a few sentences, if in fact thousands of black Southerners fired in anger at the Northern troops coming "to free them"? At least one Northern soldier put his frustration at that incident into the Official Record of the War of the Rebellion: "Here I had come South and was fighting to free this man," the disgusted U.S. major wrote in his diary; "If I had made one false move on my horse, he would have shot my head off" (Barrow et al., 2001, p. 43).

6. It complicates the simple portrayal of the North as Good, driving out the "Wicked Southern Slave master." How can Northern soldiers serve in the role as Angels of Mercy, if black Confederates shot at them?

7. It weakens support for the claim that the War was About Slavery

We like simplicity. "The War was About Slavery" is simple, as simple as a Pepsi commercial. For a society raised on Pepsi commercials, the One Factor Theory (slavery) has enormous appeal. If many blacks chose to fight for the South, how could the War have been exclusively concerned with slavery? Maybe there were other issues. Now we might have to examine economic factors (No—not that!).

The war was about MONEY!

The year before the war 85% of Federal revenues came from Southern states.

We also have to consider why individual black Southerners fought. Some were slave owners themselves, and/or occupied respected positions in their communities as Free Men of Color (especially Louisiana and Virginia) or Free Women of Color (as in Charleston, with its 6000 free blacks, mostly women).

Suggesting the slavery was not the only factor brings up a number of annoying truths about slavery, like these:

Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves until about half way through the war ( when he was trying to get re-elected and there had been a massacre of civilians in the NORTH who were protesting the war ) and then ONLY in the Southern states. The slaves weren't freed in the NORTH until a year AFTER the war ended. History ALWAYS forgets that there were NORTHERN SLAVE STATES!

Lincoln fired two generals who did free slaves in 1861 and 1862;

Lincoln didn't emancipate any slaves under his actual control; he only emancipated those slaves in the confederate controlled areas, (imagine the President today stating that the minimum wage is henceforth and forever going to be $25 an hour-- in Mexico and Canada).

The under ground railroad didn't stop at the Mason/Dixon line. It reached all the way to Canada because such states as Illinois (the land of Lincoln) had laws that a black could be whipped if found within the state for more than three days.

There were 5 NORTHERN slave states.;

Slavery was legal in these Northern states after the "emancipation" of slaves that were not under Northern control;

Lincoln's idea of how to deal with emancipated slaves was to send them to Africa, and a new African country was created for this purpose; it's called LIBERIA.

Slavery was legal in the north even after the fall of the Confederacy. The slaves in the north weren’t freed until a year after the war.

The flag that flew over slave ships was the United States' Stars and Stripes ,

NEVER did a slave ship sail under the Confederate flag.

the slave industry BEGAN in the NORTH and was FINANCED by NORTHERN BANKERS.

Do we want to bring up these facts about slavery?: That Africans were captured by other Africans to be sold into slavery? That Africans sold other Africans to Yankee, not to Southern, slave dealers, for transport in Yankee slave ships? That blacks as well as whites owned slaves?

Do we want to recognize that slavery had never been safer than in 1860: Lincoln personally supported a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever, which he signed, and Illinois had already ratified it when war broke out.

"The institution of slavery had never been more secure for the slave owners, with the Supreme Court in their back pocket, with the Constitution itself expressly protecting slavery, and mandating the return of fugitive slaves everywhere-- a mandate Lincoln said he would enforce; with Lincoln also declaring he had no right to interfere with slavery and no personal inclination to do so; with Lincoln personally supporting a new constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever . . . There is nothing the South could have asked for, for the protection of slavery, that wouldn't have been gladly provided, just as long as the South remained in the Union" (Adams, 2000).

We don’t believe in black Confederates because when we question that the war was "about slavery," we eventually get around to the question: "What Was The War About?" and "Why were 360,000 Northern boys and men killed?"

Here is the REAL REASON
Slavery had died out everywhere in the world except Brazil, and was on its way out in the Southern American States. Slavery had ended almost everywhere in the world without war. Was the death of 600,000 Americans worth ending slavery 10 or 15 years sooner?—or than ending it as it had been ended peacefully everywhere else in the world, by compensated emancipation?

8. Many whites disbelieve that there were black Confederates because of "White Guilt." Many white Americans feel undeserving of their wealth. Certainly, many are undeserving. Some give a small part of their wealth to the poor, and this seems to make them feel better. Others hire the poor to work for them—and then bask in their role as benefactors. Massachusetts writer—and abolitionist-- Henry Thoreau saw through this chimera 20 years before the War. He wrote concerning charity towards the poor at the end of the chapter "Economy," in his masterpiece Walden. Regarding his wealthy friends who "helped" the poor, by paying them to work in their kitchens, Thoreau wrote: "Let them work in their own kitchens."

One target for giving wealth has traditionally been black causes. A major recipient has been the NAACP, which endorses a movement to shift massive wealth to former slaves. Establishing that some of these slaves supported the Southern States, and that some blacks today, descendants of those slaves, still support the ideals of the Confederacy (and there were other ideals besides slavery), is inconsistent with the fundamental causes of White Guilt.

9. It is inconsistent with the culture of Victimhood. If blacks chose to fight for the South, how can blacks be passive, helpless, unwilling victims? One black liberal dismissed evidence that blacks fought for the Southern Confederacy by referencing the "abused wife syndrome": An accusation that these poor helpless blacks were victims and unable to act with volition and control over their environment. But what do we say of the blacks captured by Yankees who escaped and returned to their units?— Or of the more than 40 blacks attending the 1890 UCV Reunion, pictured in another essay? One has to believe an "abused wife syndrome" that is powerful indeed, to explain the activities of these black Confederates.

10. It brings up the annoying question: Why did blacks fight? If the reasons blacks fought for the South include the same reasons whites fought for the South, or any of the same reasons that anyone fights for any cause in any war, then we have to look at those fighting black Confederates as deliberative, volitional, reasoning, diverse, individuals, just like the whites we talk about, when we talk about why whites fought for the South.
11. It brings up another annoying question: Why did anyone fight for the North? No one really knows why men go to war to fight. Once they get there, they don't fight for their flag, or their country, or God. They fight for their comrades. Some of the issues involved in the discussion of why men fight are presented in another essay in this series, "Why Did Blacks Fight for the Confederate States of America."

The literature documenting why men fight is rich: Some of the writers who have tried to explain why men fight include Erich Maria Remarque, Hans Helmut Kirst, Heinrich Böll; William Broyles, and McPherson; Ambrose, etc. Southerners fought because the North invaded the South.

But why did Northerners fight? We do not want to ask that question, and discussing why blacks fought for the South leads us ultimately to the question: Why did anyone fight for the North?

What would you say to a boy from Iowa, bleeding to death in front of a wall near Fredericksburg in December 1862 (note the date: Before the "Emancipation")-- "Your life was lost to help force Arkansas back into a Union she does not wish to be part of"? Or how about: "You gave your life to help force Florida back into a Union that she does not wish to be part of"?

Why did anyone fight for the North? We know why 1 of 5 of them fought-- they were mercenaries literally off the boat from Ireland or Germany. These immigrants arrived at Ellis Island, and stepped from their ship into a New York Infantry Regiment. They fought in order to get citizenship. But what about the other 4 of 5 Northerners who served in the Union forces? It is indeed a difficult question to answer.

12. We Want to Believe the War Was About Slavery

Accepting that thousands of blacks fought for the Confederate States of America forces us to rethink the common assumption that the War was "about slavery." Surely no one would dismiss slavery as an important factor. But to most modern Americans, slavery was the factor, perhaps the only factor. Again, to the extent that we believe that thousands of black Confederates fought for their country, our belief in slavery as the cause of the War is threatened. This need for cognitive balance is examined at length in another essay. To summarize that essay: We ask, "what balances the deaths of 600,000 Americans during the years 1861 to 1865?" We need some reason to balance that great tragedy. What is it?

Getting even for Fort Sumter? No. Settling States Rights issues? No-- That answer never seems to explain why so many Americans died. Settling Tariff issues? No-- Same shortcoming, plus, few modern Americans can stay awake during any discussion of tariff issues. How about, to Preserve our Great Experiment in Democracy! No-- it is hard to sell this idea to modern Americans as the reason that more than half a million Americans died. The argument typically holds that had the Confederacy established itself, then there would have been more secessions, until ultimately we would have had a separate country, or two, in everyone’s back yard.

Finally, the End of slavery: Yes: Now there’s a reason we can celebrate: Slavery is bad; The South had slavery; therefore the South was bad and the Good North fought against the South, and slavery ended. Any child can grasp this argument; try explaining tariff issues to that person. Try explaining States Rights to that person—try explaining the issue of free trade and Northern versus Southern import and export economies—try explaining the diverging cultural bases of the North and the South. You will get a big yawn. Consider Ken Burns’s popular and acclaimed The Civil War—the most popular PBS series in history. To his great credit, Mr. Burns shows the appalling tragedy of 600,000 thousand dead Americans. And running throughout this 11 hour drama is the theme that ending slavery was the reason for these deaths. At one point a black woman historian makes that point explicit: The Union lifted the War to a higher plane, she explains. Clearly, Burns has accepted the idea that the War was "over slavery"—if only to give some sense to the TV audience who might wonder why America fought itself, and to do it in the TV schedule he had to work with.

Ultimately we believe the War was about the Ending of Slavery because that is the only cause that provides the cognitive balance we need.

The great evil of more than 600,000 deaths "balances" in our minds against the great evil of slavery.

Never mind that slavery ended everywhere else in the world without bloodshed. Never mind that other factors explain that the North and South became different countries long before 1860. Slavery provides that simple cognitive explanation.

Any evidence that blacks fought for the South is inconsistent with the notion that the War was only about slavery.


Adams, Charles. (2000). When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Barrow, C. K., Segars, J. H., & R.B. Rosenburg, R.B. (Eds.) (2001). Black Confederates, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna.

GOOGLE Black Confederates if you want to know the TRUTH!

Google The South was RIGHT and buy the book by Kennedy& Kennedy and READ it

 not only has the white mans heritage been disparaged but the BLACK MANS heritage as well.

also more here

and here

and here

and here

and here,%20mixed%20race,%20creoles/mulattoes,%20mixed%20race,%20creoles%202.htm

and here

and many documentary videos

as well as Civil war re-enactor units like this one

25% of "SLAVES" were European
The term slavery has also been mis-applied and twisted by revisionists. The people historians count as slaves included ALL indentured servants including the approx. 25% who were EUROPEANS that paid for thier passage to north america by bieng indentured servants or were sold into slavery by ENGLAND..

NOT ALL "SLAVES" were unhappy.