Replies

https://cwmemory.com/2006/06/08/blacks-in-gray-or-enough-is-enough/

Blacks in Gray or "Enough is Enough""
Just because someone can publish their beliefs in a book doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept their conclusions. It wasn't 300,000. It wasn't even near the 100,000+ slaves that escaped to join the Union Army.

Your only exalted source is this tripe from your progressive Bostonian Kevin Levin. Let us examine what you dragged up and brought in here. You are free to attempt to pass off this radical partisan as a serious scholar, whose words carry significant weight.

In a tweet of 22 Oct 2021 (today), Levin proclaimed, "I got through about 15 minutes of "4 Hours at the Capitol" before I had to turn it off. There is something downright obscene about giving a platform like this to insurrectionists."

It takes a special kid of stupid or partisanship to believe that the events of January 6th were an "insurrection" to overthrow the government of the United States. I am waiting for him to weigh in on the domestic terrorists of the PTA.

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.

insurrection. (15c) A violent revolt against an oppressive authority, usu. a government.
“A popular tumult is a disorderly gathering of people who refuse to listen to the voice of their superiors, whether they be disaffected towards their superiors themselves or merely towards certain private individuals. These violent movements occur when the people believe themselves harassed, and they are more often caused by tax-collectors than by any other class of public officers. If the anger of the people is directed particularly against the magistrates or other officers invested with the public authority, and if it is carried so far as to result in positive disobedience or acts of violence, the movement is called a sedition. And when the evil extends and wins over the majority of the citizens in a town or province, and gains such strength that the sovereign is no longer obeyed, it is usual to distinguish such an uprising more particularly by the name of an insurrection.” Charles G. Fenwick, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law 336 (1916).
“Insurrection is distinguished from rout, riot, and offense connected with mob violence by the fact that in insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government, while crimes growing out of mob violence, however serious they may be and however numerous the participants, are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.” 77 C. J.S. Riot; Insurrection § 29, at 579 (1994).

Kevin M. Levin, is regularly published in the failing far-left magazine, The Atlantic. Shocker, I know.

https://www.theatlantic.com/author/kevin-m-levin/

A few examples.

Historians Need to Give Steven Spielberg a Break
Hollywood will never make a movie that satisfies professional scholars. But as a work of art, Lincoln offers plenty to admire.
Kevin M. Levin November 26, 2012
- - - - - - - - - -
America's Simple-Minded Obsession With the Confederate Flag
Journalists love to recycle old clichés about the rebel banner. But its days as an official symbol of Southern pride are rapidly coming to an end.
Kevin M. Levin August 16, 2012
- - - - - - - - - -
The Case Against Vandalizing Confederate Monuments
A history teacher argues that statues of Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee deserve to be left alone
Kevin M. Levin December 21, 2011

See how a progressive progresses from 2011 to 2017.

Why I Changed My Mind About Confederate Monuments
Empty pedestals can offer the same lessons about racism and war that the statues do.
Kevin M. Levin August 19, 2017

And by 2020 we had progressed to vandalizing or removing monuments to the Founding Fathers, the Framers, and the Freedmen's Monument to Abraham Lincoln in Washington, D.C. and the replica in Boston.

Why should historians give Spielberg's Lincoln a break? It prominently features congressional clashes over the 13th Amendment as the Amendment wound its way through Congress to approval at the end of 1865. Not a word of the featured exchanges ever took place. It is all fiction. With verbatim transcripits of the actual debates, the film could have closely followed real history, but it didn't. The song that was sung to Lincoln. It was a version that did not exist at the time portrayed in the movie. Spielberg produces great technical film making. Historical accuracy, not so much.

Not to mention Kevin M. Levin's great book, making murderers out of soldiers.

https://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Battle-Crater-Directions-Southern/dp/0813169720

Remembering The Battle of the Crater: War as Murder (New Directions In Southern History) Paperback – June 16, 2017
The battle of the Crater is known as one of the Civil War's bloodiest struggles-a Union loss with combined casualties of 5,000, many of whom were members of the United States Colored Troops (USCT) under Union Brigadier General Edward Ferrero. The battle was a violent clash of forces as Confederate soldiers fought for the first time against African American soldiers. After the Union lost the battle, these black soldiers were captured and subject both to extensive abuse and the threat of being returned to slavery in the South. Yet, despite their heroism and sacrifice, these men are often overlooked in public memory of the war.

It is idiocy to argue that the Confederate soldiers were committing murder. They were the uniformed armed forces an officially recognized belligerent power engaged in a lawful war. The Union forces set off explosives in a tunnel thay had dug, and created the crater. Then, with limited ability to see what they were rushing into, the Union troops were advanced into the crater (a large, bowl shaped cavity in the ground) by their leader, a true military genius. The underground explosion sent the dirt from the newly formed cavity up and out. And the Union troops piled into one another with nowhere to go. When the dust cleared, the Confederates were above, shooting down at them. It was a slaughter.

Levin seems to think that if the Union leaders attack idiotically, the Confederates should not shoot them. And if they do shoot, that's murder. A rabidly partisan writer, who presents a one-sided view based on his prejedices, is not an historian.

Forces engaged: Union 8,500 — Confederate 6,100
Estimated casualties: Union 3,798 — Confederate 1,491

An Amazon review (the writer notes: Grant considered the assault "the saddest affair I have witnessed in the war.")

silver dollar
1.0 out of 5 stars The Crater - a work of fiction
Reviewed in the United States on May 7, 2013
About the author: "Kevin Levin is a historian and educator currently living in Boston. From 2000 to 2011 he taught American history at the St. Anne's - Belfield School in Charlottesville, Virginia. His published work in the area of Civil War history and historical memory can be found in popular magazines, newspapers, and scholarly journals. He is currently researching the history of the 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry."
This is a review of Kevin Levin's book, "The Crater," and Levin's blog that supports the book. This review is my opinion only. Feel free to check out Levin's blog, which gives an eye opening nuance into Levin's thinking and agenda. A window into the author's life and musings outside his book is helpful in understanding the author's intent and agenda in writing a book, and thus reflects directly upon the accuracy of the book. Thus this review includes a review of Levin's blog that supports his book. Levin's book should be considered a poorly written fictional account of the Battle of the Crater.
The Battle of the Crater was a battle of the American Civil War, part of the Siege of Petersburg. It took place on July 30, 1864, between the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, commanded by General Robert E. Lee and the Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by Major General George G. Meade (under the direct supervision of the general-in-chief, Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant).
After weeks of preparation, on July 30 the Federals exploded a mine in Major Gen. Ambrose E. Burnsides' IX Corps sector, blowing a gap in the Confederate defenses of Petersburg, Virginia. From this propitious beginning, everything deteriorated rapidly for the Union attackers. Unit after unit charged into and around the crater, where soldiers milled in confusion. Grant considered the assault "the saddest affair I have witnessed in the war."
The Confederates quickly recovered and launched several counterattacks led by Brig. Gen. William Mahone. The breach was sealed off, and the Federals were repulsed with severe casualties. Brig. Gen. Edward Ferrero's division of black soldiers was badly mauled. This may have been Grant's best chance to end the Siege of Petersburg. Instead, the soldiers settled in for another eight months of trench warfare. Burnside was relieved of command for the last time for his role in the debacle, and he was never again returned to command.
I will be accused of not reading the book by Levin's supporters, but please read on. I don't trust Levin to know truth in any form. The author harbors extremely biased opinions against those he does not understand especially southern people. In one rant on his blog Levin refers to one southerner as "bat s*** crazy." Is this the kind of language that should come from an educator, scholar or author? I think not.
The historical facts in the book, backed up by Levin's assumptions, are nothing but opinions and assumptions and half truths. On occasion Levin spins the story to lull the reader into believing the research is impeccable, and that Levin understands and writes the only true account of history. Only fools, and the naive will be taken in by such garbage.
Like many authors whose sole purpose seems to be making money writing books, and profiting from spinning a Civil War story, Levin has a blog peddling his book. Check out his blog in support of the book for eye openers. Most posts that disagree with his opinion will not be allowed on his fully moderated blog. Levin carefully moderates each and every post, and his agenda shows through with the posts that he allows on the blog.
Occasionally Levin will allow a post that disagrees with his agenda. In response to such posts Levin will misuse words, take statements out of context, and slam the commentator in a way to make the commentator look ignorant and "dumber" than a fifth grader, and then close the comments to further commentary. I suggest Levin used his blog in this way to gather material for the book.
I don't understand how a well respected Civil War author such as David Blight was fooled by Levin. Posted on almost every page of Levin's blog is Blight's short comment about Levin's book. In part Blight states, ". . . showing us a piece of the real war that does now (sic) get into the books." The word "now" is probably misspelled and really means "does NOT get into the books." Friends there's a reason Levin's garbage does NOT get into the books. It's pure fiction.
30 people found this helpful

Kevin M. Levin tweet

I must have blocked close to 300 people over the weekend. It turns out that people who admire Nathan Bedford Forrest don't like Jews. Who would have thought?
7:45 AM · Sep 19, 2021·Twitter Web App

I doubt that Levin speaks for ALL Jews, or that ALL people who admire Nathan Bedford Forrest dislike Jews; but I reckon that people who admire a Jefferson pedestal with a Jefferson statue on it do not like this particular radical partisan either.

You forgot to quote anything or identify the famous author who is your source of authority.

Why would I? Everything is at the link. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to flood our generous hosts' resources with tons of spam repeating what can be found simply by clicking on the link and reading.

Here I come to save the day!

You would do better to save FR some bandwidth by just making your point without spamming the forum with other people's writings that happen to agree with you.

So let's go over what you needed to post from a book to explain.

Blacks served in the confederate military. Everyone knows that. What we disagree on are the numbers who did so by choice.

The confederacy literally drafted every white male they could find before becoming desparate enough to allow blacks to serve.

Many in the North discriminated against black troops.

Everybody knew all of this before you flooded FR's disks with everybody else's work. It doesn't change the facts that the confederacy fought to preserve slavery, and the North abolished it.

"It was a fact that black casualties in the Union army were far higher than white casualties. Of the approximately 180,000 black troops eventually recruited, about 37,000 died. That death rate amounted to slightly more than 20 percent, as compared with a death rate of 15.2 percent among white troops and only 8.6 percent in the regular army."

Thank you for admitting the confederacy was more likely to kill black troops than white troops. I'm sure they felt it was justified, considering those black troops were fighting to abolish slavery.

Now that you've admitted to the extreme, vile racism of the confederacy, let's see what else you have.

I offered three sources that helped to cooborate each other, but it comes as no surprise that you chose to attack his personal beliefs instead of answer the validity of the combined arguments. OK, we'll go there.

First of all, the confederacy amen corner doesn't have any more credibility than lefties do with a lot of us on this issue. Both of you are on the same side. The lefties want to stick us with their history, and you want to accept it on our behalf.

You must think that's worse than the confederacy's defense of slavery.

But getting back to using the review itself, my search turned up very little else on the books you referenced. It doesn't seem that anyone outside of the confederacy amen corner has even taken notice of them.

Kevin M. Levin, is regularly published in the failing far-left magazine, The Atlantic. Shocker, I know.

He's a leftist. So what? I don't see the defenders of the confederacy as being any more credible. You're both on the same mission, which is to stick the right with the democrats' history.

And again, I posted three links which should help cooborate each other.

https://www.amazon.com/Remembering-Battle-Crater-Directions-Southern/dp/0813169720 (one of your references)

Yes, I always go to Amazon.com when I want to learn about history, never mind the history they helped make in 2020.

"The battle of the Crater is known as one of the Civil War's bloodiest struggles-a Union loss with combined casualties of 5,000, many of whom were members of the United States Colored Troops (USCT) under Union Brigadier General Edward Ferrero. The battle was a violent clash of forces as Confederate soldiers fought for the first time against African American soldiers. After the Union lost the battle, these black soldiers were captured and subject both to extensive abuse and the threat of being returned to slavery in the South. Yet, despite their heroism and sacrifice, these men are often overlooked in public memory of the war."

It is idiocy to argue that the Confederate soldiers were committing murder. They were the uniformed armed forces an officially recognized belligerent power engaged in a lawful war...Levin seems to think that if the Union leaders attack idiotically, the Confederates should not shoot them. And if they do shoot, that's murder. A rabidly partisan writer, who presents a one-sided view based on his prejedices, is not an historian.

The former slaves were fighting for the freedom of their race, against an entity that was actively enslaving them. The fact that you would post this as a defense of the confederacy in 2021 is appalling.

You failed to provide a link or source for your quote. I'll do it for you.

I was ready to hit the abuse button and report you for lying about me, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Judging from the fact that you insist on flooding FR with all of the text rather than posting simple links, I'm going to assume you don't understand the rules of the net.

Below is exactly what I posted here.

Having seen the full context, I stand corrected. You are right on this, but that isn't the whole story. Lincoln wanted to avoid alienating the border states. From David Hunter

Had you clicked on David Hunter which anyone who knows anything about the Internet at all would have recognized as a link, you would have seen the exact article you linked to.

As expected, you get your mythology from Wikipedia, your bible of history.

I understand the limits of Wikipedia (which you also referenced BTW) but the text was linked to references that anyone could click, so I don't see your problem.

There is still only one meaning for emancipation.

Yes. It's what the North did for the confederacy's slaves after winning the war.

Hunter declared the slaves within his jurisdiction to be free. Lincoln reversed that and the slaves declared free by Hunter remained slaves, by order of Abraham Lincoln the great abolitionist and emancipator, in the war to end slavery.

From Lincoln's letter rescinding the order, "Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system."

And Hunter was relieved of his command.

Not that I agree with the decision legal or otherwise, but it was for insubordination.

BTW, "President Jefferson Davis and the leaders of the Confederate Army were furious when they heard of Hunter's actions and orders were given that he was a "felon to be executed if captured.""

Your quote of me seemed to just stop abruptly.

Frederick Douglas wrote the quote you posted in 1861, expressing frustration with how slowly the issues of slavery in general were being dealt with. He made no secret that abolitionists were frustrated with how slowly everything was happening. That is something else everyone knows but you keep posting because you think it proves something. The North opened up recruitment to blacks in 1863.

Now hop into your time machine and go to 1876, after the war and after abolition, when he wrote "Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

Looking at it in hindsight, he could understand what Lincoln was up against and why abolition took so long.

Well, it's unanimous. I said nothing about all of anybody. I cited and quoted Frederick Douglass talking about many black men, real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops. And it is clear that you were not talking about all black men. There it is. Nobody was talking about ALL black men. Douglass did not specify how many such men there were, but it is certain that it was not too few for him to mention.

We all know there were blacks who served in the confederacy in various roles and for various reasons. The problem is you haven't posted anything to substaniate your 300,000 estimate.

If I had written something like that, you may have quoted me doing so. Instead of addressing the question, you hide, duck, and weave by a diversion.

That was no diversion. Your question was "If Lincoln had succeeded, and he had restored all the late states in rebellion to the Union as though they had never left, with full representation in Congress, when do you think the 13th (or 14th, 15th) Amendment would have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States?" That implied that the former slave holding states wouldn't have ratified abolition.

To answer your question, I don't know when or even if they would have ratified the amendment. When do you think they would have voted to ratify it?

I already quoted Lincoln on the applicable law. I'll do it again, and then quote Randall so you may enjoy an educational experience.

That was neither enjoyable nor an educational experience. Just more cut and paste.

"Taken at its best, however, the proclamation, with its partial application, was not a comprehensive solution of the slavery problem; and, in spite of this striking use of national authority, the slavery question, from 1863 to 1865, still remained, in large part, a State matter."

We know this. Slavery couldn't have been abolished completely until the confederacy was defeated in 1865, and President Lincoln had to keep the border states in line until that happened. He did, and slavery was abolished. I again refer you to Frederick Douglas' statement above.