When Lincoln Returned to Richmond

The Weekly Standard ^ | 12/29/03 | Andrew Ferguson

[Non-Sequitur]

No, Partisan did. Then you saw fit to jump down from your little sniper post and engage.

I see, so you now admit I didn't deny the existence of black confederate combat soldiers. Accuracy is not one of your strong points, any more than lucidity it. You really need to work on that.

[Non-Sequitur]

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?

Sure, except I'll spell battalion correctly. Now, the big question is whether you will call them 'battalion' or will you continue to insist on referring to the unit as a 'division'?

[Non-Sequitur]

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?

Oh good Lord, anyone wanting to know why the great sothron myth machine is so powerful only has to watch you two rewrite history on a daily basis. You first referred to two divisions of black confederate combat troops in reply 446. You switched to battallion (sic) about 60 replies later.

[GOPcapitalist]

The very first identification of either unit in question that I made on this thread was in 507, where I identified them as "J.W. Pegram's Battallion" and the "Winder-Jackson Battallion." Partisan responded finding that characterization, as well as the alternates such as division, objectionable. To the best of my knowledge he still does.

[Non-Sequitur]

The very first identification of either unit in question that I made on this thread was in 507, where I identified them as "J.W. Pegram's Battallion" and the "Winder-Jackson Battallion."

So your first mention of two divisions of black confederate combat soldiers was a figment of your fertile imagination?

[GOPcapitalist]

It was a small "d" reference made from memory to the fact that the CSA formed black confederate soldiers units - the existence of which Partisan adamantly denies. The moment you and he both inquired to the details of these units I readily pulled up and provided their names and relevent documentation, an act that is more than sufficient to correct any earlier vague, inaccurate, or questioned reference to them, be it percieved or otherwise.

[Non-Sequitur]

It was a small "d" reference made from memory to the fact that the CSA formed black confederate soldiers units - the existence of which Partisan adamantly denies.

Small "d" reference that should have been a small "b", or two small "c". Unless your intent was to deceive.

[GOPcapitalist]

Unless your intent was to deceive.

If I intended to decieve I would not have immediately and voluntarily provided extensive historical documentation characterizing them as a the "Winder-Jackson battalion" et al.

[Non-Sequitur]

If I intended to decieve I would not have immediately and voluntarily provided extensive historical documentation characterizing them as a the "Winder-Jackson battalion" et al.

The documentation was provided only when you were called to identify the divisions. Then, and only then, did they become companies and/or battalions.

[GOPcapitalist]

The documentation was provided only when you were called to identify the divisions. Then, and only then

What "then and only then" is there about it, non-seq? The very FIRST post each of you made regarding the identities of those units were both met with an immediate and voluntary response of specifics. Not one word of those specifics was ever withheld from your request.

[Non-Sequitur]

The very FIRST post each of you made regarding the identities of those units were both met with an immediate and voluntary response of specifics.

But not a retraction. A company is not a division. A battalion is not a division. Do you understand the difference now?

[Grand Old Partisan]

Like other all the other neo-Confederates, GOPcapitalist just makes things up as he goes along. When he claimed that there were two DIVISIONS of black rebel troops raised in Richmond I caught him in the lie, showing that units he mentioned were mere batallions -- and small ones too -- rather than admit his attempt to deceive he tried to bluster and lie (again) his way out of it.

They're all pathetic!

[Grand Old Partisan]

from your post #446:

"It is an indisputable FACT that in 1865 when the CSA Congress permitted black troops in the national government's armies that at least two divisions were raised out of Richmond and put into service."

Do you still maintain as a FACT that at least two divisions (totalling 10,000-14,000 men, BTW) were raised out of Richmond and put into service?

And, notwithstanding your cute attempt at dodging the truth, the Confederate law prohibiting black soldiers did not apply just to the "national government's armies" but to all troops in Confederate service, such as the Tennessee milita.

[GOPcapitalist]

It is a fact that the two previously described Richmond units of black troops came into service of the national army. If you wish to describe them as battalions, divisions, brigades, or "group-of-angry-men-carrying-guns" I care not because any is substantial enough to refute your ridiculous premise that there were no black confederates.

[GOPcapitalist]

But not a retraction.

Considering that you and Partisan seem, at least until now, unable to settle upon exactly what you desire that I do call those units, it has remained similarly uncertain as to what you would desire that I not call them. You now seem to indicate that I not call them a division, which is perfectly fine by me! If that is what you agree then I no longer will call them that and will retract any time that I did call them that in favor of whatever it is you would rather I call them.

So what one do you want: battalion? brigade? unit? group of guys with guns? You pick.

[Non-Sequitur]

Other than the original 13 states, a state did not 'unite' with the Union. They did not 'join' the Union. They were admitted to the Union only after obtaining the approval of a majority of the existing states through a vote in Congress. If those states had to approve of a new state joining the would it not make sense that the same kind of approval would be needed when a state wished to leave? How else would you protect the interests of the remaining states from being harmed by the secession?

[Non-Sequitur]

So what one do you want: battalion? brigade? unit? group of guys with guns? You pick.

Whaddya think, Partisan? Company work for you? I can live with battalion since it did seem to be more than one company. Just so long as it isn't 'division'.

[Gianni]

I see, so you now admit I didn't deny the existence of black confederate combat soldiers.

Then why continue to engage in a conversation, the only point of which is to refute Partisan's claims that no black confederate combat soldiers existed?

Oh, that's right... Because you're a troll. Unless there is some other explanation that you're keeping a secret, that's the only explanation that fits the facts.

[Gianni]

I caught him in the lie, showing that units he mentioned were mere batallions

No, you were the one caught in the lie, Mr "There wasn't a single black confederate who saw combat."

You know, I used to explain away your neoconservative power-at-any-cost idiocy with the fact that you're accustomed to Chicagoland power politics in which there are no ideologically driven parties in which to participate (i.e. being from the political cesspool of the midwest - if not the US - you just didn't know any better).

Of course now it's just getting old. Let's look at the substance of your argument:

It's pathetic, really [517]

FACTS mean nothing to neo-confederate cultists [517]

[Gianni note: Provide some that back your claims]

You're delusional [520]

GOPcapitalist just makes things up as he goes along [552]

[Gianni note: after making them up, he calls newspapers on the 'time phone' circa 1865 and has them print evidence]

They're all pathetic! [552]

Again, see posts 523 and 534 if you have any questions concerning what my problems with your statements are.