I'm not calling anyone a liar, not even you although I think you are putting words in Dr, Steiner's mouth. I don't disagree that there there thousands of blacks along with the southern army in a support role. And Dr. Steiner's account bears this out. I'm disputing the southron fairy tale of tens of thousands of black combat soldiers marching side-by-side with their white bretheren against the Yankee foe. That is the part that is ridiculous, that is the part that is wrong. You would like us to believe that the same society that placed restrictions on any ownership by firearms by blacks would suddenly welcome them in the ranks. The same states which had laws, sometime Constitutitons, against free blacks living in their state would welcome armed blacks in their regiments. The society that went to tremendous lengths to segregate their institutions would integrate their army. That is the ridiculous part. And that same society which, according to you, owed so much to the efforts of free black confederate soldiers during the war would repay that loyalty by passing the Black Codes after the war that placed those loyal black veterans, some of whom must have been free for decades, to a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible. If you are correct, if there were thousands of black combat soldiers in the southern ranks, then you did have an odd way of showing your appreciation.
The 14th Tennessee Infantry listed 65 "free men of color" on their Roll of Honor, one whom was killed in action carrying their colors in Pickett's Charge.
The 14th Tennessee was in the Third Brigade of Heath's Division. They did not participate in Pickett's Charge. Be careful of what you believe.
Then you are calling Chief Inspector Steiner a liar, because his report specifically states that. Although 3,000 in that one particular instance with Jackson's Army. As to the "side by side" part, Steiner said they were "promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde." Without a doubt the majority of black Confederates throughout the South were support personnel, that is true, but it is also true that many thousands participated in combat roles. Black Confederate combat soldiers are a fact of history, whether it fits current PC-revisionism or not. Frederick Douglass did not lie.
You would like us to believe that the same society that placed restrictions on any ownership by firearms by blacks would suddenly welcome them in the ranks.
Absolutely. Slaves were often allowed the use of arms. At home, those responsible for the master's family especially were. It was part of their role. Slaves wielding arms in defense of their families was written about many times by invading Northern soldiers. BTW, you are definitely calling Chief Inspector Steiner a liar now, because he specifically mentions them being armed with muskets, pistols, etc., and you are also definitely calling Frederick Douglass a liar as well. Why do think Mr. Douglass "lied" about it? I think he told the truth. See, I didn't even mention Horace Greeley.
The same states which had laws, sometime Constitutitons, against free blacks living in their state would welcome armed blacks in their regiments. The society that went to tremendous lengths to segregate their institutions would integrate their army. That is the ridiculous part.
Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. Your description of Northern society is quite apt, and the Northern Army did not integrate it's Army. While it may be true that officially the Confederate government in Richmod did not sanction the use of blacks as soldiers, but did as cooks, musicians, and servants, what the individual States and unit commanders decided to allow was another matter. As I previously mentioned, Tennessee for one specifically allowed it by law within her units. Did any Northern states do the same? Blacks on the Confederate army payroll were paid the same as whites by law. Where blacks in the Northern Army paid the same as whites? This can go on and on.
And that same society which, according to you, owed so much to the efforts of free black confederate soldiers during the war would repay that loyalty by passing the Black Codes after the war that placed those loyal black veterans, some of whom must have been free for decades, to a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible.
Have you ever read the Northern Black codes? Pot and Kettle again. The Southern ones were more strict, as an over-reaction to the crimes committed during reconstruction. That is not a justification, it is an explanation of what led to the severity. Other than that, they were like the North, and guilty of race prejudice. This may shock you, but most Americans, North and South, had race prejudice back then. A person may have looked at a black and thought him inferior, but that does not mean he wouldn't fight next to him. Unless he was from up North, I guess. Most Southern whites had interacted with blacks all their lives, unlike Northern whites, which probably explains that.
The 14th Tennessee was in the Third Brigade of Heath's Division. They did not participate in Pickett's Charge. Be careful of what you believe.
ROFLMAO!!! I will certainly be careful of believing any history from you. The "3rd Brigade of Heth's Division" was ARCHER'S BRIGADE. Now you maintain that Archer's Brigade did not participate in the charge of Pickett, Pettigrew, and Trimble. There is no end to your revisionism. I suggest you throw out whatever book of crap told you Archer's Brigade did not participate in that attack. The 14th Tennessee left their colors planted on the rock wall at that part of the line. Check your history. Archer's Brigade, and the 14th Tennessee Infantry with it, did most certainly participate in "Pickett's" Charge.