And, yes, you're ducking. You cannot provide ANY evidence now for the third time that what he says is not true, only to impugn (unnamed) sources and never offering a single quotation or piece of evidence. That's not the way we do history. You have to actually have evidence, and so far, he does, you don't.
Then your argument is with the author, Ervin Jordan. He made that assertion.
I'd say that there is a tendency of ALL liberal profs to deny the presence of Black Confederate soldiers as it goes against their template.
Lol. I could care less what ANY academic has to say about it. Either you can cite the underlying supporting evidence for your assertions or you can't. Neither you or Jordan has provided a jot of evidence to back up the ridiculous notion that there were 100,000 black men serving in the confederacy, or that there were 10,000 black soldiers fighting for the south. Stop running away from that fact.
You cannot provide ANY evidence now for the third time that what he says is not true
I can cite the same CSA pension application records from a dozen states that Ervin Jordan claims show evidence of a "conspiracy" to whitewash the participation of black soldiers in the confederacy. Those records, according to Jordan, show that the few black men who applied to the various state boards as former 'soldiers' had their applications changed to show they were 'liveries' or 'cooks' or 'gravediggers', etc. instead. In many cases those black men were denied CSA pensions.
Now I am willing to accept those pension application records from a dozen different states at face value and as being accurate records, but once again...
LS, do you believe there was a "conspiracy" amongst a dozen state pension boards to cover-up the truth about black soldiers in the confederacy?
That's not the way we do history. You have to actually have evidence, and so far, he does, you don't.
No, here's how you do history pal. ( Post 11 ) You quote some hack professor making an unsupported claim, you package him in with a better known and more widely read historian (who doesn't make the same claim), you apply the 'scholarly' and 'peer reviewed' labels and call it... shinola.
No sale.