Public Library to Celebrate Black Confederate History

(CNSNews.com) - As part of Black History Month, the public library system in Norfolk, Va., is honoring African-Americans who fought and died on behalf of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

Robert Harrison, director of the Horace Downing Branch library in Norfolk, said blacks are rarely portrayed as supporting the Confederacy because politically correct historians prefer to connect the South and the Confederate flag with the evils of slavery. But history tells another side of the story, he said.

Harrison said the Horace Downing Library will spend one day, Feb. 25, re-creating Civil War encampments and re-enacting the roles that blacks played on both sides of the battlefield. (On Feb. 13, the Barron F. Black Homework Center, part of the Norfolk Public Library system, will present a similar re-enactment.) The celebrations will include rifle and cannon salutes to black "fallen heroes."

"We're going to try to bring together a balanced view of what happened to the black soldier, North and South," said Harrison, a black man with Confederate ancestry who intends to wear his own Confederate uniform during the event.

Harrison said Confederate re-enactors will explore the various factors and conditions that motivated thousands of blacks, including freemen and slaves, many of whom fought alongside their masters to preserve the Southern way of life. He said the controversial Confederate battle flag will fly as part of the re-enactments.

"All historical flags, historically accurate to the individual units presented, will fly. More than likely, one or two versions of the national flags will fly as well," Harrison told CNSNews.com. "This is strictly an historical event and nothing political. We're not here to have a flag rally; we're here to have a history rally, if anything."

Harrison said the reenactments are intended to show people of all races that black history is not always what Americans have been taught to believe.

"Politically correct history has definitely found a stable footing in the way history is presented in this country," Harrison said. "Historical truth is in the eyes of the beholder, and there's always more to history than what we think we know."

For example, Harrison said he has discovered "tons of passages and memoirs" that document Southern blacks' loyalty to the Confederacy prior to and after its demise. Yet almost 138 years later, he said, it's becoming increasingly difficult to convince modern blacks that their ancestors fought to preserve the South of their own free will.

"Sometimes, people are so accustomed to having things one way, that no matter how much proof or documentation you're going to present to them, they will automatically dismiss it," Harrison said. "People have told me flat-out, 'I don't care what you have to say. I don't care if it's real or not. I believe what I believe and that's all I want to know.'"

Harrison said the stigma that attaches to the Confederate flag and issues of Southern heritage have prevented Americans, both black and white, from taking pride in their Confederate ancestry.

"It is a part of American history," Harrison said. "It's a proud history and I, myself, as well as a large host of people of all ethnicities and colors, such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other folks, speak about and praise this history every day of our lives."

Harrison said the local library system is not trying to influence patrons' views on the controversial nature of this subject. Instead, the library system will offer information, including the reenactment, that lets people draw their own conclusions.

"We're going to try to bring together a balanced view of what happened to the black soldier, North and South," Harrison said. "The information is more than there if people want to see it."

"It strikes me as an extremely false portrayal of history," said Mark Potok, spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center. "It aids and abets a completely distorted and really racist view of what occurred during the Civil War."

According to Potok, there were "extremely few" blacks that fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War. He claimed only a "handful" of blacks served the South and were relegated to non-combat roles, such as cooking.

"I'm not saying there weren't a handful of blacks who willingly fought for the Confederacy," Potok said. "It is established fact - and not by me, but by real academics of the Civil War - that blacks who fought in the Civil War were almost entirely pressed into service in one way or the other."

Potok accused the "neo-Confederate movement" of promoting the "myth" that blacks willfully fought and died to preserve the Confederacy.

"The fact is that this is a myth that has been pushed very hard by groups like the League of the South and others concerned with kind of re-writing the history of the Civil War," Potok said. "Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to spotlight the many blacks who fled the South during the Civil War and fought with the Union."

Potok said the Norfolk Public Library system's decision to celebrate black Confederate history "shows an appalling lack of judgment on their part."

"Re-enactments are very popular with the public," said Brag Bowling, Virginia commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. "All we ask for is historical accuracy."

According to Bowling, more than 90,000 blacks served the Confederate army in "one form or another," including combat.

"Depending on its slant, of course, I've seen them say that these people were forced to work for the Confederacy," Bowling said. "If you take a look at a lot of the United Confederate Veterans reunion photos, there are just boatloads of black people in the pictures...they weren't forced to come to the reunion."

Bowling said the "most overlooked" group of people in America is blacks who fought for and supported Confederacy. However, he said many blacks with ties to the South are pressured into denying their Confederate roots by other blacks who are too ashamed to admit the reality.

"Within black communities," Bowling said, "the people who want to honor their ancestors are shrilly beaten down by the politically correct forces in the community."

Bowling blames the embarrassment faced by those Southern blacks on historians and text book authors for creating an abundance of "politically correct revisionist history."

"Nowadays, you're not allowed to talk about certain subjects, and this is one of them," Bowling said. "I think black people, especially, need to know the fact that there were lots of blacks that served in the Confederate service, and it might be some of their ancestors that they don't even know about."

The north didn't want blacks at all - they were just as restrictive, the north was not an oasis. Illinois praticed de facto slavery (indentured servitude), and many norhern states had law prohibiting the entry of blacks. The Republican party of Lincoln ran on a platform that incuded white supremacy and separtism. But again, if things were so great, why didn't millions of blacks move north or west?

If memory serves we're talking about the alleged black confederate soldiers. I agree whole-heartedly that conditions for free blacks up North were abysmal, and that racism was common. But it is also clear that as bad as conditions were for blacks up North, they were as bad or worse in every single southern state. You point out that free blacks were not welcome up North and ignore the fact that they were no more welcome down south. Every single southern state had, at one time or another, laws on the books that prevented free blacks from moving in or allowed the government to expel free blacks within their borders. Some sold freed slaves who remained in the state back into slavery, others required acts of the legislature for them to be freed in the first place, still others had Supreme Courts which said freeing slaves was illegal to begin with. And that was prior to the war, so you would have us to believe that the very states who didn't want free blacks within their state in 1861 would welcome them into the ranks of their army as combat soldiers?

Your claim that Lincoln ran on a platform of white supremacy and separtism is flat wrong. Here is a Link to the 1860 Platform and here is a Link to the 1864 Republican platform. Neither one has the provisions you claim.

Nonsense. Read the 14th. Ex-confederates couldn't hold office

The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until July 1868, three years after the implementation of southen Black Codes. And the Amendment prevented ex-confederates from holding office without Congressional approval which was granted about the time Reconstruction was ending. A number of former confederates held policical office. General Joe Wheeler, for example, had been in congress for almost 20 years before he resigned to fight in the Spanish-American War. Ex-confederates played a central role in enacting the laws that oppressed the very black confederates that you claim they owed so much to.

The 85th Indiana Volunteer Infantry reported to the Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette that on 5 March 1863: "During the fight the [artillery] battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by [*in italics*] two rebel negro regiments. [*end italics*]."

Now we're getting somewhere. The 85th Indiana was attached to Coburn's Brigade of Baird's Division during that period. March 5th, 1863 means the Battle of Thompson's Station in Tennessee. The opposition were members of Earl Van Dorn's cavalry division with Nathan Forrest's brigade attached. So which one of the confederate regiments were the black ones? It was a fairly small command involved, surely it won't be hard for you to identify which regiments the 85th was talking about?

"...As usual with the enemy, they posted their negro regiments on their left and in front, where they were slain by hundreds, and upon retiring left their dead and wounded negroes uncared for, carrying off only the whites, which accounts for the fact that upon the first part of the battle-field nearly all the dead found were negroes." - Federal Official Records, Vol. XXV, Chapter XLVII, pg. 341 - report of the Confederate Commander, Savannah, April 27, 1864 - Battle of Ocean Pond (Olustee)

Better and better. The Confederates at Olustee were organized into two brigades. A.H. Colquitt's consisted of 6th, 19th, 23rd, 27th and 29th Georgia, and the 6th Florida. George Harrison's consisted of the 1st, 32nd, and 64th Georgia, 1st Florida Bn. and Bonand's battalion. Smith's regiment of cavalry was also present. So which one of those were the black regiments? This should be easy for you since you only have 12 units to research. It should be a piece of cake to identify the black ones. I'm looking forward to your reply.

Alexander Stephens represented the same congressional district both before and after the war. John Reagan, the rebel postmaster general was also later a member of the U.S. Congress.

'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'
US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 3.

Alexander Stephens is a distant relative, was elected US Senator in 1866, but was denied admittance since Georgia had not be readmitted to the Union it couldn't leave. Stephens was elected to the 43rd Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Ambrose R. Wright, then elected to the 44th-46th Congresses, serving from 1 Dec 1873 - 4 Nov 1882.

Reagan was elected to the 44th-49th Congresses (4 Mar 1875 - 3 Mar 1887); had been elected to the 50th Congress but resigned to become Senator, serving from 3 Mar 1887 - 10 Jun 1891.

When was reconstruction? In Georgia, President Johnson appointed (doesn't republican mean representative) James Johnson Governor on 17 Jun 1865. Georgia and numerous other states reject the 14th amendment in November 1866. The yankee congress then passed the Reconstruction Act of 2 Mar 1867, placing Georgia into the 3rd Military District.

On 18 Mar 1868, the Georgia legislature rejects 14th amendment for the 2nd time, finally agreeing on 21 July 1868. The US Congress approved of Georgia's readmission to the Union it couldn't leave 25 Jul 1868 but adjourns before the Senators could be seated. On 3 Sep 1868 the GA legislature expels 28 blacks (25 Representatives & 3 Senators) due to a technicality in the new state Constitution (blacks could vote, but not hold office). In March of 1869 Georgia's Representatives and Senators were barred from their seats in US Congress, and the congress introduced a bill that Georgia would have to ratify the 15th Amendment before it could be admitted to the Union. On December 22, 1869, the U.S. Congress put Georgia again under U.S. military rule.

On 15 July, 1870 Georgia is finally readmitted to the Union it couldn't leave, and is represented in both the US Senate & Congress in October 1870. The military leaves in 1872.

Reconstruction was from 1865-1872 in Georgia. The state had to ratify 3 separate Amendments as conditions to be readmitted to the Union it couldn't leave. The two gentlemen you noted above, both served after Reconstruction.

In his attempts to appear scholarly "Walt" (and "non-sequitir") commits two cardinal sins which disqualify him and his posts from logical consideration:

He disputes a first-hand contemporaneous account for no other reason than it flies in the face of his own "beliefs" when the primary tool of any "Civil War" historian IS first-hand contemporaneous accounts:

Walt: "If this Union regiment reported that they were attacked by two negro regiments, they were in error."

"The one battle where your source suggested that two negro regiments were engaged apparently had no black troops at all. That is typical of the lies spread by the neo-reb movement."

Seems that Walt is trying to imply that a Unionist newspaper and an Indiana regiment of 140 years ago were part of the "lies spread by the neo-reb movement." Time-travel or simply far-sighted conspiracy?

Amazing - and a REAL reach to continue that effort to rewrite history. I question where Walt was on the battlefield that such a statement can be considered more than a petulant denial. Where is his the conflicting eyewitness account from that time and place?

He gets a citation of history entirely wrong to twist it to support his contentions:

Walt: "Black POW's were murdered at Fort Pillow, TN in April, 1864, at Saltville, VA in October, 1864 and at the battle of the Crater in July 1864, and on numberous other occasions."

The unfortunate reality is that USCT at the Battle of the Crater at Petersburg advanced unsupported under heavy fire against entrenched Confederate infantry and artillery on the edge of the crater and were thrown back. The following PROPERLY cited historical evidence states clearly what really happened then:

"George L. Kilmer, an officer of the Fourteenth New York Heavy Artillery, went into the crater with the first wave and reported afterward that when the USCT moved forward to charge the fort, some of white soldiers refused to follow them. Pandemonium broke out when the black soldiers could not continue the assault and started to retreat and come back into the crater. 'Some colored men came into the crater and there they found a fate worse than death in the charge . . . It has been positively asserted, that white men [Union] bayoneted blacks who fell back into the crater.'"

Sorry, Walt the bayonets that spitted USCT were wielded by the "fellow" Union soldiers, not Confederates.

This is validated by other contemporaneous historical reports of the conduct of Union forces realtive to the USCT:

"Sergeant George E. Stephens of Company B described the scene to Captain Emilio: 'Just at the very hottest moment of the struggle, a battalion or regiment charged up to the moat, halted, and did not attempt to join us, but from their position commenced to fire upon us. I was one of the men who shouted from where I stood, 'Don't fire on us. We are the Fifty-fourth.' I have heard it was a Maine Regiment .'" - "A Brave Black Regiment: History of the Fifty-Fourth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry," Luis F. Emilio, Boston: Boston Book Company, 1894; Reprint, Salem: Ayer Company Publishers, Inc., 1990., 93

Even the Confederates were appalled by what they saw:

"...As usual with the enemy, they posted their negro regiments on their left and in front, where they were slain by hundreds, and upon retiring left their dead and wounded negroes uncared for, carrying off only the whites, which accounts for the fact that upon the first part of the battle-field nearly all the dead found were negroes." - Federal Official Records, Vol. XXV, Chapter XLVII, pg. 341 - report of the Confederate Commander, Savannah, April 27, 1864 - Battle of Ocean Pond (Olustee)

Walt again incorrectly cites the Confederate source documentation about conduct toward Blacks taken under arms. The reference was to Blacks taken under arms in "servile insurrection" - in other words, slave rebellion by non-military combatants.

As for Walt's remarks about "Ft. Pillow Massacre" and the actual Confederate actions regarding USCT as prisoners of war he trots out the tired old "evidence" of the 1864 Union Army propaganda instead of the Federal Official Records and the findings of the 1871 Congressional Investigation which was chaired by W.T. Sherman. Just so no one could mistake his purpose, Sherman spelled it out as: "we come here to investigate Forrest, charge Forrest, try Forrest, and hang Forrest."

No one was charged as a result of the 1871 Congressional investigation. As a matter of evidence their investigation considered such records as:

Federal Official records, Vol. XXXII, Chapter XLVI, pg. 599

"HEADQUARTERS FORREST'S CAVALRY DEPARTMENT,
Fort Pillow, April 13, 1864.

Referring to the copy of communication attached, the following-named officers and privates are acknowledged to have been received under the proposition made, and their parole is hereby acknowledged.

I hereby acknowledge to have received from Major-General Forrest 2 first and 1 second lieutenants, 43 white privates, and 14 negroes.

W. FERGUSON,

Acting Master, Commanding U. S. Steamer Silver Cloud. "

In plain terms this documents a receipt given by a Union ship's Acting Master for the transfer of Union survivors of the "Ft. Pillow Massacre" which happens to include 14 USCT. If there was a "massacre" it was not a very efficient one to unwisely leave at least 60 survivors and an unknown number of living unwounded survivors.

A clear statement of Confederate military policy was made by Lee:

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 2, vol 7, Part 1 (Prisoners of War) p 1010 - 1012

"HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
October 19, 1864.

Lieutenant General U. S. GRANT, Commanding U. S. Armies:

GENERAL: In accordance with instructions from the Honorable Secretary of War of the Confederate States I have the honor to call your attention to the subject of two communications recently addressed by Major General B. F. Butler, an officer under your command, to the Honorable Robert Ould, commissioner for the exchange of prisoners...

Before stating the facts with reference to the particular negroes alluded to, I beg leave to explain the policy pursued by the Confederate Government toward this class of persons when captured by its forces.

All negroes in the military or naval service of the United States taken by us who are not identified as the property of citizens or residents of any of the Confederate States are regarded as prisoners of war, being held to be proper subjects of exchange, as I recently had the honor to inform you. No labor is exacted from such prisoners by the Confederate authorities...

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

R. E. LEE,

General. "

The observations of Col. Sir Arthur Femantle of the Coldstream Guards, British Army, seemed to bear witness to this policy:

"Three Months in the Southern States: April, June, 1863," p. 70: Notwithstanding the exasperation with which every Southerner speaks of a Yankee, and all the talk about the black flag and no quarter, yet I never saw a Federal prisoner ill treated or insulted in any way, although I have traveled hundreds of miles in their company."

Although Walt acknowledges that BGen Stand Watie was only one of many Indians who fought for the Confederacy, he fails to mention that he was one of over 10,000 who fought for the South while fewer than 2000 for for the Union. The same was true of Hispanics...5300 fought for the South while only about 500 fought for the North.

Walt seems to bypass the scholarly axioms which DO NOT allow us to discount documentary evidence because we do not like it or because it does not agree with us. Further, he seems to be without reluctance to alter facts to suite his incorrect assertations.

Clearly, Walt's postings are and should be considered as simple opinion and not valid arguments of historical fact.

As to the post by "non-sequitir" as follows:

"'...As usual with the enemy, they posted their negro regiments on their left and in front, where they were slain by hundreds, and upon retiring left their dead and wounded negroes uncared for, carrying off only the whites, which accounts for the fact that upon the first part of the battle-field nearly all the dead found were negroes." - Federal Official Records, Vol. XXV, Chapter XLVII, pg. 341 - report of the Confederate Commander, Savannah, April 27, 1864 - Battle of Ocean Pond (Olustee)

Better and better. The Confederates at Olustee were organized into two brigades. A.H. Colquitt's consisted of 6th, 19th, 23rd, 27th and 29th Georgia, and the 6th Florida. George Harrison's consisted of the 1st, 32nd, and 64th Georgia, 1st Florida Bn. and Bonand's battalion. Smith's regiment of cavalry was also present. So which one of those were the black regiments? This should be easy for you since you only have 12 units to research. It should be a piece of cake to identify the black ones. I'm looking forward to your reply."

Pardon my amusement at the fact that "non-sequitir" missed the fact that the Confederate commander was referring to the fact that the UNION forces retreated from the battlefield leaving their wounded USCT behind. The 54th Massachusetts, USCT, was only one of the Black Union regiments whose wounded were abandoned in favor of white Union troops.

There was no mention or even a hint of implication that there were any Black Confederate regiments engaged, but the history rewriters ofttimes get lost in their zeal to appear educated or informed. This seems to cast doubt on "non-sequitir's" reading of historical citations in his fervor to make sarcastic "refutation."

The posts to which I have responded are useless for the debate of history, but most demonstrative of the lengths to which the "PC" crowd will go to revise and rewrite history to bend it to meet their misguided "feelings."

At the monument to the 1200 Confederate POWs who died at Camp Morton, Indiana, and buried there in a mass grave the bronze plaques list 26 Blacks, 7 Hispanics, and 7 members of Indian regiments. All the Black Southerners had to do to walk away free men was raise their hand and repeat a brief oath...but instead they chose to stay.

That speaks volumes that all the "PC-speak" cannot explain or deny.

Your Obedient Servant,

Colonel Michael Kelley, CSA
Commanding, 37th Texas Cavalry (Terrell's)
http://www.37thtexas.org
"We are a band of brothers!"

"The iron hand of prejudice in the Northern States is as circumscribing and unyielding upon him as the manacles that fettered the slave of the South." - "The Negro in the American Rebellion; his heroism and his fidelity," William Wells Brown, Lee & Shepherd, Boston, 1867, page 142

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.