[Non-Sequitur]

But, do you admit that some blacks fought for the South? That's the real issue. The photo in question is simply a distraction.

Some did, but in nowhere near the numbers that have been bandied about on this thread. The overwhelming majority served unofficially in supporting roles as teamsters, cooks, servants, laborers, and the like, and there is no doubt that by doing so they freed up a lot of white men to do the actual fighting. A very small percentage may have served in the ranks. But the idea that tens of thousands of blacks served side-by-side with their white counterparts as combat soldiers is not supported by any evidence I've seen.

[central_va]

The overwhelming majority served unofficially in supporting roles as teamsters, cooks, servants, laborers, and the like, and there is no doubt that by doing so they freed up a lot of white men to do the actual fighting.

Black Rebs in this role were in danger, and were also a force multiplier. Riding shotgun on a ammo wagon train with Union cavalry running around isn't the safest thing in the world to do.

[Michael.SF.]

I did not see this post, until now, so you already answered my question:

You stated: The overwhelming majority (of CSA Blacks) served unofficially in supporting roles as teamsters, cooks, servants, laborers, and the like

So then soldiers in WWII or any other war who served in similar functions are to be considered on a lower rung of honor then those who fought in combat?