Posted on 07/02/2002 3:37:44 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
The Osceola Sentinel SUNDAY, JULY 5, 1998 -- An Edition of The Orlando Sentinel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historian: Civil War tales are pure bunk
History doesn't lie. Right? Well, the winners want history to make them look good. Sometimes the losers get their say, too.
Perspectives can change. Villains can be made to look like heroes. Interpreting the past can lead to lively debates. And because it is history, often the only confirmation comes from what was written down or told orally through generations.
Even so, care must be taken.
When talk turns to the Civil War and blacks' role with the Confederacy, there is no room for revisionist theories for Asa R Gordon.
For instance:
The Confederate states were interested in white supremacy.
The war between North and South was not about states' rights or a War of Southern independence. States' rights and independence are WHATS of the Civil War. The WHY of it was to preserve slavery, Gordon told a small group at St. James AME Zion church in Kissimmee last week.
Simply put, there should be no memorials honoring men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They and others resigned from the Union Army and fought against their country.
They were rebels, and they are traitors to the United States. Nations normally don't honor traitors, Gordon, a retired astrophysicist, said to a crowd that included a group from the Osceola Children's Home.
People normally don' t build memorials for traitors, racists or those who practice genocide.
There are no memorials to the Nazis.
In the United States, Confederate memorials dot the countryside. The flag is flown with pride. The Nazi flag - and Nazi leaders - inspire hatred.
It should he no different for Lee and others who fought for the South. The real heroes, Gordon said, are those Southerners who fought for the North.
As for those who try to promote the idea that blacks were willing soldiers for the South, Gordon's research disproves it.
In a lecture that was close to three hours long, the founder and executive director of the Washington, D.C. -based Douglass Institute of Government left no doubt about the fantasies and historical myths of Afro-Confederates.
"The South won in peace what it lost on the battlefield," Gordon said.
The commitment to the neo-Confederate movement is often emotional rather than intellectual, he said. It cannot stand the scrutiny of scholarship. The belief that blacks willingly served in the Confederate Army is ludicrous and harmful, he said.
"A slave didn't have a choice. If his master said he was going, the slave couldn't say no. He was a slave."
Those who say blacks fought for the South should look at Confederate documents, which ban blacks serving as regular members of the Army. They also need to look at records showing that those who did serve deserted when they got the chance.
Propagation of the present-day theories make it hard for people to realize that blacks were unhappy about their condition, Gordon said.
"How can you owe a people anything, if in fact they were so satisfied with the state that suppressed them?" he asked. "How can you correct that legacy if you are in denial about the true reasons?"
Gordon's visit was sponsored by Ann Tyler and Evan McKissic. McKissic, a retired Osceola teacher, has been critical of the theories of another retired local teacher, Nelson Winbush.
Winbush travels the country recounting the stories of his grandfather, who he said willingly and proudly served with Southern forces.
"I try to get the truth out. I talked with my grandfather, and I know what he said," Winbush said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Pino welcomes comments. He can be reached at (407) 931-5935, by e- mail at OSOpino1@aol.com, by fax at (407)931-5959 or by mail at The Osceola Sentinel, 804 W. Emmett St., Kissimmee, 34741.
You need help.
Now that's good music!!
I've always liked you, billbears.
And Davis couldn't care less about Union, freedom or the rights of man. All he wanted to do was make more money from his 'precious' slaves.
And if Mark Twain wasn't the ultimate rebel against 'Southern culture' I don't know who was.
Three hours?!? Walt, listen. It's about that upcoming speech he's giving I said we should go to. Could you bring some popcorn and a pillow? I mean we'll probably get hungry and I KNOW I'll be taking a nap. How full of hot air can someone be to talk for three hours and completely miss the truth the entire time?
People normally don' t build memorials for traitors, racists or those who practice genocide
I don't know. According to you, Washington, Jefferson, and Associates were traitors to their Empire and in this guy's eye they were racists to boot. Yet we've got a whole town full of them up there in Washington. Are we supposed to scrap all those except for abe's monument? Oh, but wait he was a racist even by 19th century standards. Exactly what monuments are going to be left?
Gordon's visit was sponsored by Ann Tyler and Evan McKissic. McKissic, a retired Osceola teacher, has been critical of the theories of another retired local teacher, Nelson Winbush.
I'm not sure what is scarier. Asa talking anywhere or the fact that it looks like public school teachers, who teach the nation's children BTW, sponsored the event. And McKissic's dismissal of Winbush's truth just shows another example of the left dismissing the facts to push their political agenda
They are also quite exceptional men. The story of Levi is interesting because it is so clearly different from that of the normal Southern slave.
The lesson here is that while it would be irresponsible to completely discount stories of blacks who fought as Confederate soldiers, such instances were so remarkable that their very existence must count against the broader claim that "blacks fought for the South."
TECHNICALLY, the revisionists are CORRECT that blacks could not serve in the REGULAR ARMY.
what they do NOT tell you (and they KNOW!)is that the PACSA had less than TWO THOUSAND MEMBERS (2,000!), most of whom were very senior officers!
99+ percent of the rebel military force were sailors,marines, privately raised units, local militia & STATE troops!
between 20 and 25 percent of the STATE troops were MEN of COLOR! my best GUESS is about 100,000-150,000 black men served the CSA as soldiers, sailors or marines.
for TRUTH & dixie LIBERTY,sw
Indeed they do... like the one who wrote this article!
the official service records do NOT lie, but they certainly point out that damnynakees DO!
as usual, the revisionists show their true colors as RACISTS & racebaiters, by continuing to deny the black CSA soldiers their HONOR as servicemembers for the TRUE CAUSE!
for a FREE dixie,sw
On the other hand, here we have a poster passing by this thread on FR who recounts a story from his family, and I responded with a similar story from my family. That's two, just by chance (other than the fact that we were both interested in this thread). How many more similar stories may be out there is the unsolved mystery. And until somebody does a comprehensive survey and publishes it where it's seen, we won't really have any idea.
Agreed, sir - he got a little transcendent and cynical in his old age, didn't he? I guess he's proof that a little rebellion is a healthy thing. But a great love of Southern culture courses through both Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, the way a brother would chide a brother - part joke, part fight, part playful wrestling and part earnest warfare. He was no fan of elitists of any sort, I guess, except himself, toward the end, with his own global perception of the human race.
And while we're at it I forgot to mention my favorite Southern writer, Flannery O'Connor.
as usual, the damnyankees want to cleanse their bloody hands;alas for them, there is NOT enough soap in all the world to accomplish that.
for TRUTH & dixie,sw
"There are at the present moment, many coloured men in the Confederate Army doing duty, not only as cooks, servants and labourers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their soldiers and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down Loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal Government, and build up that of the traders and rebels."
-- Federick Douglas, fall of 1861 From the Columbus (GA) Daily Sun, August, 1st 1862
Gordon and his DIG foundation are as racist as the come (see his junky geocities website). His work amounts to nothing but ankle-biting agitators trying to cause a rift in race-relations. I will try to attend the next seminar these jokers put on - I would love to see the 3-hour comedy show. Walt, save me a seat!
No "Black Confederates"
According to the Confederate Veteran June 1915
While soldiers who had fought in the Civil War were still alive there was no attempts to construct fantasy armies of "Black Confederates." Such attempted claims would have met the ridicule of those soldiers who had fought in the Civil War. It would also have destroyed the credibility of the person or organization trying to make such claims.
Additionally, since the Confederate organizations of the 19th and early 20th century lived in times of white supremacy, there was no need to try to make the Confederate flag a part of African American heritage.
Hence, the following article from the Confederate Veteran shows the common belief of the Confederate Veteran and pro-Confederates, that there were no black Confederate troops. This article is about the proposal and the controversy and concludes why "the act was never accomplished."
The forty volumes of the Confederate Veteran of 1893 to 1932 are available commonly in the downtown library of most major cities. I highlight in red the closing section of interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 246, Confederate Veteran, June 1915. Official publication of the United Confederate Veteran, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Confederated Southern Memorial Association.
CONFEDERATE STATES NEGRO TROOPS
BY JOHN C. STILES, BRUNSWICK, GA.
On account of the South's being practically drained of fighting men by the middle of the year 1864, the question of using the male slaves to reenforce the army was agitated. I shall give a few opinions on the subject taken from various sources.
As early as September 9 a gentleman from Augusta, Ga., signing himself a "Native Georgian," wrote to the department thus: "The idea may have been presented to you of employing the negroes as soldiers. They can certainly fight as well for us as against us. Let the negro fight negro, and he will show much more courage than when opposed to whites. Promise Freedom when the war is over and colonize them either in Mexico or Central America."
On December 21 the Hon. J. P. Benjamin, Secretary of State, expressed himself as follows: "It appears to me enough to say that the negro will certainly fight against us if not used for our defense. There is no other means of swelling our armies than that of arming the slaves and using them as an auxiliary force. I further admit that if they fight for our freedom they are entitled to their own."
Gen. Howell Cobb, an unbeliever in this expedient, wrote from Macon, Ga., January 8, 1865: "I think that the proposition is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to this your white soldiers are lost to you, and one reason why this proposition is received with favor by some portions of the army is because they hope that when the negro comes in they can retire. You cannot keep white and black troops together, and you cannot trust negroes alone. They won't make soldiers, as they are wanting in every qualification necessary to make one. [Note General Lee on the negro as a soldier.] Better by far to yield to the demands of England and France and abolish slavery and thereby purchase their aid than to resort to this policy, which would lead to certain ruin and subjugation."
Samuel Clayton, Esq., of Cuthbert, Ga., wrote on January 10, 1865: "All of our male population between sixteen and sixty is in the army. We cannot get men from any other source; they must come from our slaves. Some say that negroes will not fight, but they fought us at Ocean Pond. Honey Hill, and other places. The government takes all of our men and exposes them to death. Why can't they take our property? He who values his property more than independence is a poor, sordid wretch."
General Lee, who clearly saw the inevitable unless his forces were strengthened, wrote on January 11: "I should prefer to rely on our white population; but in view of the preparation of our enemy it is our duty to provide for a continuous war, which, I fear, we cannot accomplish with our present resources. It is the avowed intention of the enemy to convert the ablebodied negro into soldiers and emancipate all. His progress will thus add to his numbers and at the same time destroy slavery in a most pernicious manner to the welfare of our people. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it ends in subverting slavery, it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, that we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our soldiers' social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ tl1em without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guarantee of military efficiency. We can give them an interest by allowing immediate freedom to all who enlist and freedom at the end of the war to their families. We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. In conclusion, I can only say that whatever is to be done must be attended to at once."
President Davis on February 21 expressed himself as follows: "It is now becoming daily more evident to all reflecting persons that we are reduced to choosing whether the negroes shall fight for or against us and that all the arguments as to the positive advantage or disadvantage of employing them are beside the question, which is simply one of relative advantage between having their fighting element in our ranks or those of the enemy."
The question was argued and thrashed over in Congress, and on March 23 1805, the following order was issued from the adjutant and inspector general's office in Richmond: "The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact that, in order to provide additional forces to repel invasion, maintain the rightful possessions of the Confederate States, secure their independence, and preserve their institutions, the President be and he is hereby authorized to ask for and accept from the owners of slaves the services of such numbers of ablebodied negro men as he may deem expedient for and during the war to perform military service in whatever capacity he may direct. * * * That while employed in the service the said troops shall receive the same ration, clothing, and compensation as allowed other troops in the same branch of the service. * * * No slave will be accepted unless with his own consent and the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring as far as he may the rights of a freedman. * * * The enlistment will be for the war."
On March 28 the following order was issued to various parties: "You are hereby authorized to raise a - of negro troops under the provision of Congress, and you are allowed sixty days' absence and will be detached from yot1r command for that purpose."
If there were any such troops enlisted, there is no official record of same. For two reasons the act was never accomplished: First, the experiment was tried too late in the game; secondly, the owners of the slaves were so reluctant to part with their property that the following letter was brought forth on the subject:
RICHMOND, VA, April 2, 1865.
"I have delayed writing in order to give you some information on the negro question. * * * If the people of the South only knew and appreciated General Lee's solicitude on this subject, they would no longer hold back their slaves. * * * Their wives, daughters, and the negroes are the only elements left us to recruit from, and it does seem that our people would rather send the former to face death than give up the latter. ."
In my opinion, if this method had been adopted earlier in the war, it certainly would have made a material difference in its duration; but I am not prepared to say that I think it would have changed the final result. I feel, however, that the negro would have fought as well for us as against us, and when they were properly officered the records show that they put up a pretty good opposition. Since that time the negro in the United States army has always given satisfaction as a fighter, as the records of our Indian and SpanishAmerican Wars will show, and also the records show that thirtytwo of these people are holders of medals of honor given for personal gallantry on the field of battle.
Source: http://www.mindspring.com/~newtknight/CVBlackConfederates1915.htm
And note, BTW, that Levi was not a soldier at all, but instead a loyal servant.
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.