Nonsense, I'm suggesting that you are putting words into Dr. Steiner's mouth. He mentions several thousand mixed in with the army but his description of them riding mules, wagons, ambulances and caissons or with the command staffs resemble more servants and laborers than combat soldiers. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that maybe they were part of the planning staff for the generals in question? And it still doesn't explain his comment on "the horror rebels express at the suggestion of Black soldiers being employed in the National Defense." Why did the idea of facing black Union combat soldiers inspire horror if blacks were serving in the ranks with them?
Slaves were often allowed the use of arms.
The heck they were. In Tennessee the state Constitution noted that only "free white men of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense." In North Carolina the state Supreme Court ruled in State v. Newsom that free blacks could not own weapons or carry them without a permit. Since they weren't allowed by law to vote then they weren't citizens and weren't entitled to the same protections a white person was. Likewise, in Georgia the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to carry concealable weapons only pertained to white people. In fact every single southern state had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and severely restricted the owenrship of guns by free blacks. And, according to you, they just tossed those aside in their rush to admit blacks into the ranks as combat soldiers.
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.
We're not talking about Northern society, we're talking about the Southern one. There is no doubt at all that conditions for free blacks up North were abysmal. But at that it was no worse, and in many cases was much better, than conditions down south. Since the idea of integrated units was not sanctioned by the North, the idea that the south would do different is ridiculous.
Blacks on the Confederate army payroll were paid the same as whites by law.
What law was that?
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.
Again, you show that you don't know what you're talking about. The Black Codes were passed by southern legislatures in 1865 while reconstrution didn't start until 1867. Why would they pass restrictions which returned blacks into a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible, including those who had been free prior to the war and those, according to you, fought for the south? And why would those who fought for the south participate in what you would call crimes during reconstruction? Where was the loyalty you spoke of then?
Most Southern whites had interacted with blacks all their lives, unlike Northern whites, which probably explains that.
But not as equals. If they interacted with blacks then it was with them as slaves and the white, regardless of economic position, a free man and the barrier was insurmountable.
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.
Archer was captured on the first day. Command of his brigade went to Fry it was involved in the charge. I stand corrected.
He specifically states the majority were armed. And yet you say that is impossible. But yet you say you don't call him a liar. As to their positions within the columns, how about the others he mentions in the last half of the sentence, those that were "promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde." Yes, some were no doubt support personnel, I have already stated that. Some were very obviously soldiers, as well. That would certainly seem to fit with documented history and common sense. That 'neo-unionist' revisionists are so desperate to not only change but erase history is unfortunate. While it is true that most black Confederates were loyal support personnel, many thousands fought as soldiers. It is a fact of history testified to by people on both sides during the war. They, just like most Southern whites, were loyal to their home, their family and the world they knew. They fought to protect it from an invading foe. Blacks fought for the Confederacy just as they fought for the Colonies in the Revolution. The valor and sacrifice of those black Americans will no doubt be next on the list to be expunged. After all, they "obviously" would have fought for the British and gained their freedom according to the maniacal thinking of revisionists.
And it still doesn't explain his comment on "the horror rebels express at the suggestion of Black soldiers being employed in the National Defense."
If perfectly explains it. The first half of that sentence was: "The fact was patent, and rather interesting, when considered in conection with...". He is very obviously pointing out that he considered the Confederate's objection to the North using black troops to be paradoxical, since the Confederates were already using them in their army. I have already explained the Confederate's objection to the North's use of them.
...In fact every single southern state had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and severely restricted the owenrship of guns by free blacks. And, according to you, they just tossed those aside in their rush to admit blacks into the ranks as combat soldiers.
Well, there you go again, saying Frederick Douglass must be a liar. And you must be calling Chief Inspector Steiner a liar again, because he specifically mentions that the majority of the thousands and thousands and thousands of black Confederates he saw were armed. That aside, slaves could use their master's weapons whenever he told them to or had given permission, it was not illegal. Free blacks had restrictions on ownership, not total prohibitions. Many Northern states had similar restrictions, the ones that allowed blacks to live there, that is. Before the war, it was not uncommon for "house slaves" to be taught to hunt, and they were often "given" weapons by their white families for that purpose. Hunting and procuring food was one of their duties in many families. Many were excellent shots. Union soldiers wrote about black Confederate sharpshooters and Northern newspapers did as well. Just as both also wrote about black Confederate soldiers and POWs in general. ARMED black Confederate soldiers and POWs.
Since the idea of integrated units was not sanctioned by the North, the idea that the south would do different is ridiculous.
LOL - You can call Frederick Douglass a liar, but I don't:
"There are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still...Rising above vulgar prejudice, the slaveholding rebel accepts the aid of the black man as readily as that of any other." - Frederick Douglass in 1861.
Same for Horace Greeley:
"For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union." - Horace Greeley.
Again, you show that you don't know what you're talking about. The Black Codes were passed by southern legislatures in 1865 while reconstrution didn't start until 1867.
LOL - Again you have demonstrated a weak understanding of history. Not that it matters, but I had primarily referred to the more severe parts of the various codes that were put in place after reconstruction. The codes you refer to were abolished long prior to the ones I referenced and were only in place for a short time. Either you have no knowledge of history, or your one or two little books you rely on didn't paint big enough of a picture for you.
Why would they pass restrictions which returned blacks into a condition as closely resembling slavery as possible, including those who had been free prior to the war and those, according to you, fought for the south?
To maintain control over their large population of ex-slaves, obviously. Just as the majority of Northerners thought that ex-slaves were incapable of caring for themselves and would revert to criminal behavior if suddenly freed and turned out on their own, most Southerners thought the same thing. The North had black codes to control the few blacks up North, and the South adopted black codes to control the many many millions they had. Everybody had codes.
And why would those who fought for the south participate in what you would call crimes during reconstruction? Where was the loyalty you spoke of then?
They didn't participate. They were not the ones manipulated and used by the scum that crawled out of Northern gutters and were given power by Washington. Those blacks were terrorized and mistreated just as whites were. They were immensely well thought of by the white community, and their funerals were often attended by many hundreds of whites, ex-Confederate soldiers and their families.
But not as equals. If they interacted with blacks then it was with them as slaves and the white, regardless of economic position, a free man and the barrier was insurmountable.
I made it a point that they did see the blacks as inferior to them, just as the Northerners did. My point was that the Southerner's constant interaction with blacks resulted in a familiarity that allowed them to fight together. Blacks were almost always present whenever they had done anything, whether it was hunting or going to the store. The Northerners had no history of constant interaction with blacks, and were not willing to fight alongside them.