Posted on 12/24/2003 10:30:18 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
Abraham Lincoln, with his son Tad in tow, walked around Richmond, Virginia, one day 138 years ago, and if you try to retrace their steps today you won't see much that they saw, which shouldn't be a surprise, of course. The street grid is the same, though, and if you're in the right mood and know what to look for, the lineaments of the earlier city begin to surface, like the outline of a scuttled old scow rising through the shallows of a pond. Among the tangle of freeway interchanges and office buildings you'll come across an overgrown park or a line of red-brick townhouses, an unlikely old belltower or a few churches scattered from block to block, dating to the decades before the Civil War and still giving off vibrations from long ago.
First you object to it being labelled as a battallion, which is what the papers described it as. Then you object to it being labelled as a division, which is what several histories refer to it as. Put differently, you have created a no-win scenario in which no reference, regardless of its historical accuracy, suffices to meet your absurd and unattainable standards of "proof" for the existence of black confederate soldiers.
Fine with me though. If both of these terms are so objectionable to you I'll yield the floor and let you pick one of your own. Tell me, Partisan exactly what would you have me call either of those two units? Do you want me to call them the Winder-Jackson large-mass-of-men-who-walk- around-with-guns-and-shoot-things-on-command? Or how about leaving off the reference entirely and calling them the Pegrams and the Winder-Jacksons? The choice is up to you since it remains obvious that no other for of reaching a proper title will satisfy your asinine and petty demands.
No, GOPcapitalist. In the confederate army, as with the Union army, a division was a recognized army organization consisting of three or more brigades, each with three or more regiments. You can call the Winder-Jackson unit whatever you want, but it why not call it what it was, a battalion? Two companies only. Not a regiment, not a brigade, not a division. A battalion.
These are not statements that are refuted by a matter of degree. Partisan and Non-seq bitching about what the South chose to call this or that organizational unit must be their way of admitting participation in a shameful and obvious falsehood and apologizing for it.
Well guys, apology accepted.
You truly have a most tenuous grasp of reality, don't you? What other explanation can there be for you constantly finding things which aren't there? The only 'obvious falsehood' here was GOPcapitalist's claim that there was a 'division' of black troops in the confederate army.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will LOL!) - but that Brigade was referred to as the "Stonewall Brigade," which was the 1st Brigade of the 2nd Corps, which ceased to exist after Spotsylvania.
But wasn't Pegram with Jeb Stuart's Calvary - the horse artillery.
No, he was with Forrest for a while until transfering back to Virginia. He was a division commander under Early, until he was killed near Petersburg in February 1865 - a month before the south agreed to enlist black combat soldiers.
These are not statements that are refuted by a matter of degree.
Once again, please tell us what your home planet is so that we can pipe the above into a universal translator such that you understand.
I was thinking of John Pelham of Stuart's Calvary...
Earth. How about you?
No. Winder-Jackson was composed of recruits out of the Winder and Jackson military hospitals in Richmond, hence its name.
Example: A -> B
To disprove, one need simply show that condition A is met, and B is not (i.e. any instance of A and NOT(B) is sufficient).
For instance:
Former rebels voted Democrat.
To translate that: If (A) one is a former rebel, then (B) they voted Democrat.
Longstreet (former rebel/A) became a Republican (did NOT vote democrat/NOT(B)), therefore this statement is false.
One cannot dishonor men who DID NOT EXIST.
Translate: IF (A) one was a black confederate, then (B) he did not exist.
For cryin' out loud, the quote that Partisan put up that purportedly supported his argument provided a counterexample!!!
a squad of Major Turner's colored troops, neatly uniformed, and showing a good soldierly carriage. These regulars had gone up to look at their colored brethren
Seek help.
Thanks for the clarification...
Currently battalion is a specific sub-unit of a regiment or brigade consisting of three or more companies. In the Civil War there was no official sub-unit in a regiment other than the company or troop. A battalion was usually a temporary detachment of several companies from the regiment. Since your unit had only one or two companies then battalion would be an accurate description, far more than brigade or division or whatever you're using these days.
You first, especially since I'm not aware that I ever said that there were no black confederate combat troops. There were a handful, as GOP pointed out, enlisted and/or conscripted in the closing weeks of the war by the Davis regime. However, the idea that there were tens of thousands of black combat soldiers in the confederate ranks is ridiculous.
That, or a diversionary tactic from having to admit they were wrong. As I noted previously no title I give to the unit seems to satisfy either. I called it a battallion just as the newspaper reported and partisan threw a hissy fit over that. So next I stated OK, would you like me to call it a division then? to which partisan and non-seq both objected, with non-seq now demanding I return to calling it a battallion. Finding these "standards" to exhibit the characteristics of a no-win scenario, I have twice thrown out the offer to refer to them by any reasonable unit term desired and so chosen by either partisan or non-seq or both for the simple reason that it does not alter the existence of a black unit - a claim previously denied by these two creatures.
To date I have not recieved an answer on what each desires me to call them. No surprise there.
No, Partisan did. Then you saw fit to jump down from your little sniper post and engage.
So I take it then that you desire I call them by the original term of choice as also reported in the newspapers, that being batallion? Considering that this is the term I initially posted, albeit to much protest from your ally, it is one that I will happily employ. If that is the case though may I ask that you kindly inform your buddy Partisan of this request so that he does not complain again upon its use?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.