Skip to main content

Remember that Virginia fourth grade textbook that claimed that thousands of African-Americans fought as soldiers for the Confederacy?  And the critics raved! (from WaPo):

Faked photo
      A supposed photo of the 1st Louisiana Native Guard.
Historians from across the country, however, said the sentence about Confederate soldiers was wrong or, at the least, overdrawn. They expressed concerns not only over its accuracy but over the implications of publishing an assertion so closely linked to revisionist Confederate history.

"It's more than just an arcane, off-the-wall problem," said David Blight, a professor at Yale University. "This isn't just about the legitimacy of the Confederacy, it's about the legitimacy of the emancipation itself."

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James McPherson of Princeton University said, "These Confederate heritage groups have been making this claim for years as a way of purging their cause of its association with slavery."

But ... no evidence?  No problem.  On the right you'll see an alleged photograph of troops of the 1st Louisiana Native Guard.  Now this is indeed a remarkable thing, because until this, ah, "evidence" (?) emerged, there were no known photographs of any troops associated with this unit, which existed for a brief time in New Orleans for parade duties only and was composed of various free persons of color.  For some reason, never quite explained to my satisfaction, it was actually possible to raise such a regiment.

Let's have a look at some of the provenance of this photograph below the Squiggle of Doom.

But first a few facts.  

1.  The 1st Louisiana Native Guard Regiment was raised in the New Orleans area and accepted into the Louisiana State Militia on May 2, 1861, and disbanded in early February, 1862, shortly before the Union Army captured the city of New Orleans.

2.  As stated, the unit was never furnished with any uniforms or arms by the Confederacy, nor apparently by the state of Louisiana.  To the extent the unit had any arms or uniforms, they were furnished by the unit's members themselves.

3. The daily high temperature in New Orleans in May runs from 82 to 87 degrees.

Genuine photo
      The actual photo, of the 25th Rgt, U.S. Colored Troops.
Recruitment Broadside, 1863
      Come and Join Us Brothers (Chicago History Museum).
Now, it turns out that the actual basis for the supposed photograph of the 1st Louisiana Native Guards is in fact that on the left, which has been identified as an image of members of the 25th Regiment, U.S. Colored Troops.  The image of that purports to be that of the 1st Louisiana Native Guard is in fact a crude recent forgery, as shown in this article.  

If there were any possible doubt, the photograph was the obvious basis for the recruiting poster shown at the right.

The Native Guards "photograph" is a deliberate forgery.  The soldiers are not wearing Confederate gray, but rather the sky-blue Union winter greatcoat and the Union's sky-blue trousers.  Maybe a foolish person might take these to be Confederate uniforms, but foolishness can be ruled out here, because the officer on the left, undoubtedly a Union soldier, has been deliberately cropped out.

The forgery, utterly worthless as a historical record, was being schlepped out to the gullible at the website, as documented in this screen capture, at $4.95 for an 8x10 image, "suitable for framing".  

No purchaser ever seems to have asked the question: what were those supposed black Confederates doing wearing winter overcoats in the summer of 1861 in New Orleans?   And if no uniforms were actually issued to these men, why are they all wearing ... uniforms?

Now, you can't buy the Native Guards forgery over at any more, but you can still get a fine variety of bumper stickers for the true patriot including:

Item #HBS000 Does My Flag Offend You?  CALL 1-800-LEAVE DIXIE

Real Men Are Not Afraid to Show It (apparently this refers to the Confederate flag and not a part of the real man's anatomy.)

You Think This Flag Represents Hate and Slavery? YOU ARE WRONG.

We Fought the First War Against Terrorism [Includes image of Confederate flag]

And of course the pièce de stupid:
"Remember Honor The South's Black Confederate Soldiers."
This ridiculous forgery continues to fool people around the web even though it's been thoroughly discredited for years.  

Here's a website, which reproduces the "Native Guards" forgery claiming it as genuine, AFTER using the "Join Us Brothers" recruiting poster to show UNION troops, then claims:

... if not for slavery some African Americans would have preferred the South to the North.
Yep, the South was great for blacks except for that slavery thing.

And how about this -- the History Department (yes, you got that right, the HISTORY Department) of the University of New Orleans uses the same cropped forgery here over the caption "Louisiana Native Guards."   (Minor update: this is actually another version of the forgery that has been further edited to crop out the words "1st Louisiana Native Guard" but the University used almost the same words in a photo caption right below the image.)


Update #2 -- The Memory Hole:
Since this diary was posted, the University of New Orleans History Department has removed their version (this had different cropping -- see comments below) of the forged image from their website.

Originally posted to Plan 9 from Oregon on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 06:42 PM PDT.

Also republished by Black Kos community, Community Spotlight, and Barriers and Bridges.


Why is the myth of black Confederate soldiers being pushed so hard these days by the wingnut class?

7%48 votes
40%280 votes
1%8 votes
0%5 votes
40%278 votes
9%65 votes

| 684 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (175+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MsGrin, palantir, Chi, alain2112, Bruce Webb, ironpath, Horace Boothroyd III, cacamp, DanceHallKing, swampyankee, CA ridebalanced, blue jersey mom, shanesnana, jacey, Renee, Shawn Russell, OrganizedCrime, myrealname, prettygirlxoxoxo, MinistryOfTruth, Southern Lib, bob152, Just Bob, DBoon, Unit Zero, WB Reeves, T Maysle, sow hat, shesaid, Meteor Blades, edwardssl, ogre, yella dawg, operculum, Phoenix Woman, craiger, assyrian64, HarpboyAK, CaliSista, dull knife, Rosaura, mollyd, KenBee, vahana, vacantlook, uciguy30, blue denim, eleming, kpardue, Sandy on Signal, Denise Oliver Velez, Habitat Vic, Simul Iustus et Peccator, shanikka, Powered Grace, marina, Jollie Ollie Orange, Emerson, Naniboujou, 1Nic Ven, triplepoint, ruleoflaw, copymark, ybruti, frisco, nupstateny, kmoorh, La Gitane, LaFeminista, wilderness voice, Moody Loner, Dirtandiron, elmo, Desert Scientist, Vita Brevis, Brian1066, JML9999, justintime, OldDragon, Joy of Fishes, Gorette, countwebb, realwischeese, Temmoku, myboo, Plantsmantx, Skennet Boch, KateCrashes, Clytemnestra, Quite Contrary, Rainefenix, a2nite, Woody, slatsg, OllieGarkey, oysterface, RonV, Gary Norton, Michael Chadwick, Orinoco, mungley, splashy, sawgrass727, Anak, chuckvw, anodnhajo, pragmaticidealist, Calfacon, urnumbersix, martini, prfb, Bcre8ve, TBug, enufisenuf, rmonroe, cai, Bisbonian, pico, poorbuster, hubcap, mellowinman, cherie clark, NYC Sophia, elginblt, enhydra lutris, Hohenzollern, hwy70scientist, oldmilitant, suesue, blueoasis, GenuineRisk, Ahianne, crystalboy, NonnyO, roadbear, Patango, Wee Mama, Matt Z, Nespolo, PrahaPartizan, ordy, Nowhere Man, our better angels, otto, Chrislove, Ohkwai, TrueBlueMountaineer, AgentOfProgress, Late Again, JVolvo, luckydog, Lily O Lady, leonard145b, DBunn, redlum jak, howabout, mikejay611, PeterHug, ccasas, Haf2Read, dotdash2u, wildweasels, BobTheHappyDinosaur, leevank, rmabelis, slowbutsure, Sun Tzu, doingbusinessas, wdrath, science nerd, blackjackal, YucatanMan, radical simplicity, Larsstephens, Oh Mary Oh

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 06:42:30 PM PDT

  •  It wasn't until 1864 that Lee finally got the (9+ / 0-)

    authorization to raise black troops for the Confederacy.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 06:56:16 PM PDT

  •  You should point out to these folks that (29+ / 0-)

    if they love the Stars and Bars they're against the Stars and Stripes.

    You can't be for one and be for the other.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 06:57:29 PM PDT

  •  South didn't authorize black troops till 1865 (18+ / 0-)

    The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The "Great Truth" about the "Lost Cause" by James W. Loewen and Edward H. Sebesta
    Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War by Bruce C. Levine
    are recommended.

    A few weeks before the end of the war, a few dozen slaves were "freed" by their owners and "volunteered" in Richmond, and did not see any fighting. That was the limit of the Confederacy's black forces.

    Mixed raced men in Louisiana tried to form a unit early in the war and were refused.

    Take the fight to them. Don't let them bring it to you. - Harry S Truman

    by jgoodfri on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 07:02:56 PM PDT

  •  good diary.this lie truly makes me grind my teeth. (19+ / 0-)

    thank you for posting.

    Conservatism is killing this country. Jayden

    by swampyankee on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 07:07:54 PM PDT

  •  As I recall from reading Civil War history, (8+ / 0-)

    there were indeed a very miniscule number of African-Americans in Confederate ranks---never as an official policy, not likely to be 100% voluntary, and/or undoubtedly in exchange for freedom. As well, most of them weren't in a combat capacity. Here's one link I was able to find, although it's rather sketchy.

    These textbook authors, however, are clearly trying to spin it into something it isn't. Being able to convince low-information people that there was some kind of enthusiasm on the part of southern blacks for the CSA would be a boon in terms of historical revisionism. In any case, there's no doubt that this "1st Louisiana Native Guard" is fictitious---I mean, it's even in 'Algerian' font...

    Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism.

    by Zutroy on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 07:12:30 PM PDT

    •  Not only were there no numbers of Black (11+ / 0-)

      Confederate soldiers, but when Patrick Clayburn brought it up in 1864 he was shot down (figuratively) by brother Confederate officers in the Western Theater.

      "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

      by TofG on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 08:14:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clayburn's letter to Davis (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catfood paradoxical, isn't it?

        At once, it gives evidence for some who believed in the "independence" line entirely (if not most -- we'll never know how well the intelligentsia of the south believed the causus belli vs. the genuine cause) and would be happy to give up the economics to achieve that end. On the other hand, the response by Davis shows that he understood that his fight was for the planters and the "way of life." In fact, the other generals also seem to have understood -- if not who they were fighting for, at least the political reality of their proposed nation.

        The truth that hides beneath this is that the north was not fighting to end slavery, and the south not to keep slavery, even though slavery caused the war. Slavery was the reason for the whole of it, and slavery is why the southern states could endure a tariff one year, but not the next, why they could believe they were states one year and an empire of the south the next. Consequently, enslaved persons would sometimes try to save their homes by service or by indirect help, especially before 1863. They had nothing to gain from the new comer and home to lose.

        If money is the root of all evil, then what is Mitt Romney?

        by The Geogre on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I believe you mean Patrick Cleburne (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Peril

        See here.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 08:29:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In a history of the Lumbee Indians I read that (5+ / 0-)

      the Confederate Army forced free non-whites to do manual labor. Many of them resisted.

  •  Why they fought (16+ / 0-)

    I would like to recommend a good book on the causes of the Civil War, Why They Fought: The Real Reason for the Civil War

    There have been a number of proposed causes of the civil war, but each points back to slavery. For example it has often been claimed that States Rights were the cause, but it was only about States Rights for one thing: slavery.

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 07:17:31 PM PDT

  •  This'll Put 'Em Over the Top From 1 to 2% Black (9+ / 0-)


    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 07:45:45 PM PDT

  •  Up to the last week or two before the end of the (5+ / 0-)

    civil war, the generals were still trying to decide whether to enlist slaves in the confederate army. Besides the few Creole out of New Orleans, who were never used to fight and were treated so badly, some enlisted in the Union army. And they were only a part of the confederate for a short time. It's not like slaves could make their own decisions, or the confederates would ever trust a slave with a gun.

  •  Serious historians view the "Black Confederates" (12+ / 0-)

    concept as silly as scientists view the climate change and evolution deniers.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 08:10:39 PM PDT

  •  Body Servants of Confederate officers (23+ / 0-)

    are the only cases I'm aware of where African-Americans went into battle.

    In my husbands family, there was a man whose name in his later years was Stokes Maddox Judd (both Maddox and Judd being names he took on after emancipation).  He was a former slave, half black half Cherokee, born around 1841 in western N. Carolina, I believe Madison County.

    I'm looking at his Confederate Pension application that he filled out in 1929.  He says he enlisted as a body servant at Wilmington NC in Apr 1864 as a body servant to Capt Davis of Wheeler Cavalry (a vicious and undisciplined group if there ever was one).

    Body servants were slaves who joined (willingly or not) their owners (generally officers) when their owners enlisted.  They would serve the officer when not in battle.  But when the officer did go into battle, the body servant usually rode an extra horse and carried extra weaponry.  If the officer had his horse taken out from under him, the body service would give up the horse he was riding.  Basically, the body servant went into battle with his owner.  But I don't know if they did any actual fighting.  I have my doubts.

    Stokes Maddox Judd served Capt Davis for 3 months, when then was sent to work in the salts works during the winter months "hauling salt through rain and snow", and then discharged from the Confederate Army in March 1865 near Avents Ferry NC.

    I have no record that he was part of a unit of African-American confederate soldiers, though.

    Stokes died in 1933.  His widow Nelly applied for a widow's pension, but she was denied because the rules didn't allow for widows of "colored" soldiers to receive pensions.  Some people took the matter to the North Carolina legislature.  It appears the N.C. House passed a measure that would allow her to receive a pension, but it was never brought up for a vote in the N.C. Senate.  So poor Nelly never received a Widow's Pension.  Assholes.

    •  My great great Aunt a former slave, later becoming (22+ / 0-)

      an educator, told me slaves did what they always did. They cooked, emptied slop buckets, dug graves, took care of horses, etc and slaves were never given guns or fought, for obvious reasons.

      •  Amazing story about your great great Aunt ... (10+ / 0-)

        I may be reading ths wrong and granted, I am very forgive my dumb question...but you knew her and has conversations wtih her a former slave.  Amazingly cool, few of us can say this.  

        I have no stories of ancestors in this country before
        1889. They were all coal miners  in PA and slaughterhouse or factory workers in KY.  So I have great early union stories and I have some of their citizenship papers and purchase of goods orders and property which is cool.

        What I always wanted to ask great grandparents, all of whom were immigrants was what were they reading in their papers in western and eastern Europe about the Civil War as there are stories my great grandfather wanted to come to America and was all ready to when word spread Civil War in America. He was crushed !!

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 01:34:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Field Fortifications and Emplacements (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Peril

        I believe that slaves were also used by the Confederate fighting forces to construct emplacements and field fortifications.  By 1864 the Union was on the offensive in every sector and the Confederacy was reduced to defending vital specific locations - Atlanta and Petersburg being the two notable examples.  Extensive field fortifications, like the trenches of WW1 West Front fame, were constructed around those cities and the Confederates artillery batteries would always need dug-in emplacements for artillery pieces.  Slave labor was a force multiplier for the Confederacy by freeing fighting troops from having to build such important positions.  One could always argue that "fought" means being located in an area of active hostilities and being engaged in a military function while not armed, which is the Confederate casuistry being discussed here.

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:23:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There Are Two Kinds Of People In The World (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cartoon Peril

          Those with loaded guns, and those who dig.

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:25:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gone With the Wind (0+ / 0-)

          I'm recalling a scene where Scarlett O'Hara, amidst the chaos of Atlanta under siege, recognizes one of hers among a large gang of slaves. The black man politely explains to his mistress that they are going off to dig holes for the white soldiers to hide in.

          OK, maybe that's too good to be true. It's been quite a while since I viewed the classic. Maybe I need to put it on my Netflix list.

          Srsly, I'm sure you're correct that slaves were used to build earthen fortifications.

    •  That's my understanding too. (17+ / 0-)

      Just about every Confederate Pension application I have seen for a "colored" person has been for body servants.  And you bring up an excellent point.  The primary sources are out there.  The most interesting thing about the Civil War records is there is no place for race.  The Union had separate "Colored Troops".  The Confederacy had no such thing.  Are we to belief the names of these phantom black confederate soldiers are interspersed with "white" soldiers?  Need I remind everyone that one of the reasons the Dixiecrats came to be was because Truman integrated the military.  Back to primary sources: enlistment records, casualties, prisoner rolls (were there any "black" folk in Union POW camps?), awards, photos, disciplinary actions, pension records and thousands of letters and diary entries.  Now I am not saying it didn't happen BUT I have never read a letter of a Confederate soldier writing home to talk about their "colored" soldiers.

      With all of the these Civil War buffs (I live near a battleground) surely there would be something: a letter, a real photo, a record OR anything to backup this claim.  Plus where are the descendents touting their ancestors "work" in the war?  Where's the oral history?  You would think someone, somewhere would have said something about "blacks" fighting for the confederacy as soldiers.  And when you find that ONE story compare it to the countless stories of slaves risking their lives to join the Union.  Talk about a "lost cause".

      •  In Prisoner of War camps (0+ / 0-)

        Earlier this year I visited the notorious Andersonville POW camp in Georgia, now a National Historical Monument, which is dedicated to the story of all prisoners of war, diplomatically taking some edge off the ugly story of Andersonville itself.

        This and other smaller Confederate POW camps came to be after the Union started enlisting so many black soldiers. Until then, the sides always took prisoners, and the next day or so they swapped them out. But the Confederates refused to return black Union soldiers, after all, they were presumed to be ex-slaves, no matter if they had been freemen for years or generations.

        The Union Army then took a stand on principle: If the Confederates would not return black soldiers, the Union would NOT accept white soldiers only. It refused to discriminate in this important way. So POW exchanges stopped and POW camps were built.


        Considering how shabbily the 'colored troops' were treated by the Union Army, from pay to equipment to a solid ceiling of white-officers-only, this seems a helluva place to draw the line. At Andersonville alone, the stand on principle caused tens of thousands of overcrowded and underfed prisoners of war to die of disease and starvation.

    •  In my white family (10+ / 0-)

      Several ancestors fought for the Confederacy, including my father's slave-owning grandfather, a colonel who lead a cavalry unit.

      The colonel's wife, let's call her Georgia, had an interesting family.

      Her uncle on her mother's side had taken up with a slave woman, and upon his death in North Carolina he willed his, um, spouse-equivalent and their daughter to his niece, Georgia, to own and care for. So Georgia's first cousin, not much younger than herself, was her slave.

      Georgia, her husband, and their handful of slaves all moved to Texas in the 1850s. I'm not sure if this was the best deal for the slave relatives or not. By this time, iirc, many Southern states had outlawed manumission, so owners could not free their slaves if they wanted to. And white Southerners were sure that terrible things would happen to slaves who went to live in the North. Being captured en route from the South to the North and being sold back into slavery was surely a real risk.

      Meanwhile, back in Mississippi, Georgia's mother died, and at some point her father took up with one of the slave women, and they had a son. So Georgia's first cousin, not much younger than herself, was her father's slave.

      During the War, when Union troops started down the Mississippi River, Georgia's father gathered up his family and other slaves and fled to Texas, settling near his daughter's place.

      Not long after, Georgia's (unrelated) slave cousins married. The slave relatives did enjoy a better situation, as "house" slaves rather than field workers.

      By family lore, while the Col was off fighting, Georgia took wagonloads of cotton down to Mexico to evade the Yankee blockade. She was accompanied by her male cousin/slave. He had the obvious opportunity to grab his freedom in Mexico, but instead he returned to the plantation, presumably to be with his wife and baby.

      At least one of the male family/slaves went to the front, no doubt as body servants as described, and when the Col was injured, he no doubt needed extra care from his, um, slave in-laws. The lore does not suggest that these slaves at the front were ever given weapons. But they did not make a break for freedom on the other side. Again, they had slave family back home to consider.

      Remarkably, there is a family photo (I don't have it) of a reunion of Confederate soldiers showing one black face of one of the ex-slave family members smack middle among them.

      Over the years the black and white branches of the family have stayed in touch, if not close. A year or so before he died, I mentioned to my father that I was interested in the stories of the family slaves. (By then I had been picketing segregated businesses as a tiny speck of a participant in the Civil Rights Movement.) He took me to the modest home of a woman who looked to be a million years old. We visited on her doorstep. She was proud to tell us about her parents who had been born slaves and what they had accomplished in life. Years later I met her grandson and we became friends, visiting in each others' homes.

      Telling this story not to apologize in any way for slavery or the Confederacy.

      Rather, my point is that many white owners and black slaves were related, and had complicated relationships. It seems likely to me that some number of slaves went to the front with their masters without ever making an attempt to escape to the Union side.

      They may have come to be regarded as "loyal" darkies. I think their main concern was for their wives and children who would have been left behind.

      The personal is political, and life can be so complicated.

      •  My husband's g-g-grandfather was a (5+ / 0-)

        white slave owner in North Carolina.  His name was Henderson Judd, who allowed the above mentioned Stokes Maddox to come work for him shortly after the war.  Stokes lived there, so changed his name to Stokes Maddox Judd.

        Henderson had 10 or 11 children by his slave housekeeper, Mary, from whom my husband is descended.  It was actually a loving relationship.  In an 1871 trust, Henderson left land to his children.  In the trust, he acknowledged his children and mentions his love and affection for them.  It was truly one of the most astounding things I'd ever seen.

        So I think these situations need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

      •  Cool story, but ... (0+ / 0-)

        How are Georgia and the slave dude "first cousins"?  As you tell the story, her widowed daddy sired him on one of his employees (h/t to "The Patriot").

        Even in Kentucky that would make him her brother, not her first cousin.  

        •  Yes, I stand corrected (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Georgia's uncle on her mother's side died and left his spouse-equivalent and their daughter to Georgia. That daughter was her first cousin.

          Then after her mother died in childbirth, her father took up with a black woman and sired a son, who was then her half-brother.

          Then her half brother married her cousin.

          After the war, they were given a little piece of land and had a modest house on it. They continued a relationship with their white family members as paid employees. They attended the funerals of their white family members, sitting in a pew behind their white relatives in the white section of the First Methodist Church in the 1930s, when my mother witnessed this phenomenon.

      •  Very illuminating (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I should like to make it clear that my description of the myth of the "loyal darky" wasn't intended to deny the existence of individual ties and relationships that crossed the color line. Rather, I was trying to point out the mechanism by which such realities, which directly contradicted the ruling ideology of white supremacy, were explained away.

        My Aunt Mary remarked more than once on the absurdity of denying that inter-racial liasons were common place, when the evidence for them was apparent in every community throughout the south.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:59:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Fugitive Slave Law (12+ / 0-)

    Is widely misunderstood. Those slaves weren't running away, they were on recruiting trips to the North, offering the freemen up there the same wonderful opportunities for a happy life on a plantation as they were experiencing already. But the South was full up with happy slaves, so they discouraged the practice.

    Snark, of course.

    No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. H. L. Mencken

    by jim0121 on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 01:08:35 AM PDT

  •  One possible correction.... (5+ / 0-)

    You seem to indicate that the history dept is also using the photo incorrectly

    And how about this -- the History Department (yes, you got that right, the HISTORY Department) of the University of New Orleans uses the same cropped forgery here over the caption "Louisiana Native Guards."
    The Louisiana Native Guards that I've seen mentioned were Union Troops. I did not get the impression from the University's site that they were claiming those in the photo fought for the Confederacy. There were 4 regiments: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Louisiana Native Guards. Their names were changed to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Regiment Corps D' Afrique which were later changed to 73rd, 74th, 75th, and 76th United States Colored Infantry.

    No matter the name, they all fought for the Union side.

    "Someone just turned the lights on in the bar and the sexiest state doesn't look so pretty anymore" CA Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Texas budget mess

    by CaliSista on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 01:29:32 AM PDT

    •  I thought of that, but the photo has date "1861" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eleming, Temmoku

      New Orleans was not occupied by the union until 1862.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 02:25:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But so far as my old eyes can see, the photo (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cartoon Peril, Temmoku

        on the University of NO pages does not say 1861.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 04:48:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Somebody has further cropped out forged caption (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to make apparently a third version of this photo, and underneath this third version the University has added "Louisiana Native Guards" with no date.  The University does use the deceptive version which crops out the Union officer on the left.

          Clearly an error, as the photo demonstrably is not of the Louisiana Native Guards at all, and a rather glaring error insofar as it was being used to illustrate an announcement of an historical presentation called:

          A panel discussion titled "Military History of New Orleans/South Louisiana: Public History at Work" was held on Saturday, July 11, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the National World War II Museum.

          You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

          by Cartoon Peril on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 05:05:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's more breakdown on that UNO panel, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cartoon Peril, CaliSista

            in the right-hand column of the web page that you linked to:

            Panel #1 "Colonial and Civil War Period" 1:00 p.m.

            Joe Stoltz "The Louisiana Militia: Examining Loyalty in the Early National Period" &

            Darryl Barthe "The Curious Circumstances of the Louisiana Native Guard"

            It would seem the photo is being used to illustrate the latter, perhaps as the object of a debunking. I searched (admittedly shallowly) for the author and title without any luck.
  •  Just read the Articles of Secession.... (13+ / 0-)

    from the various Confederate states.

    They're chock full of references to slavery and list the North's "hostility to slavery" as one of the prime reasons for secession.

    It's right there in their own words.

  •  New Orleans, Napoleonic, etc. (8+ / 0-)

    New Orleans never sat well in the Confederate world. It had a vibrant "mulatto" community that occupied a high economic position, a ruling creole, and other mixes and blends that were nowhere else. It also had a separate legal code. Famously, New Orleans built up a myth that Indians and mixed race volunteers defeated the British in 1814, and they celebrated the racial separateness of the region.

    Part of this has been that these communities have felt -- much like ethnic enclaves, curiously -- that they have needed to stand up and volunteer when their city was under threat to prove their citizenship. I would not be surprised that there was a "native" unit -- the very term a recall of 1814 -- nor that it was self-funded to recall the volunteers who beat the British. I also would not be surprised that it folded.

    It almost certainly had nothing to do with the status of enslaved persons across the south. Extrapolating from New Orleans is foolish, any time, but especially before 1950.

    If money is the root of all evil, then what is Mitt Romney?

    by The Geogre on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 04:51:57 AM PDT

    •  The other problem is the blatant misrepresentation (6+ / 0-)

      of the historical record, as shown here, in the textbook case, and in various other instances.  

      Clearly this is being done with some present political objective in view, and I would not be at all surprised to find this linked to birtherism and other Republican lunacies.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 05:08:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely right! "Eighteenthers?" (6+ / 0-)

        I've forgotten which they are. We know the "Tenthers" are a big noise among the insane and infirm politically, and then there is a group of. . . 14thers? I keep wanting to call them Thirteenthers, because that's what they genuinely are.

        It doesn't help matters that we have this narrative of moral purity and avenging angels, because it obscures the settling of the federal question. Also, of course, the central constitutional case needs to be trumpeted, and the fact that that didn't get decided until well after the war (because the south had a majority on the SC) doesn't help, either. These people need to be quieted and denounced.

        If money is the root of all evil, then what is Mitt Romney?

        by The Geogre on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 07:30:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They push so hard for it because it gives them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, Temmoku, a2nite

    pleasure. Reality is a poor substitute for their beliefs so they just indoctrinate it as much as they can. And they all get to share in the fantasy and it reinforces their racism.

    Slow thinkers - keep right

    by Dave the Wave on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 05:16:10 AM PDT

  •  "Oh, Yuck! History's Grossest Moments" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, akeitz, Temmoku, Patango

    was apparently the title of one of the author's previous books.

    I'm assuming the book adequately covered the subject of white southerners who fought for the Union army, especially since the fact that many working class whites didn't support the Confederacy is much more relevant to undermining many myths people seem to hold about it. It always boggles my mind, as a northerner, when I see white southerns whom I suspect to be working class lauding a society based on a clearly feudal economy. I just don't get it. Why do they love so much a brutal economic system?

  •  Texas Is A Bit More Confusing--Normal Actually (0+ / 0-)

    Texas had large numbers of Hispanic Confederates fighting.

    Col. Santos Benevides was the commander of a large number on the Rio Grande.

    The Commander of the 34th Indiana reported that his unit was attacked by large numbers of Confederate troops consisting 'mostly of Italians and Mexicans' at Palmito Hill.

    And, also, white Texas Confederates joined with Stand Watie defending Oklahoma.  Stand Watie was a Cherokee.

    The anti-Hispanic stuff now seems imported by Yankees moving here.

  •  Other than that, how did you like the play Mrs. (7+ / 0-)

    Lincoln? In a nation of teh stewpid this might be in the top ten:

    ... if not for slavery some African Americans would have preferred the South to the North.
    Of course, IF NOT FOR SLAVERY, most of the African-Americans would never have become Americans, or the very least slaves.
  •  Daisy Duke was hot (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, roadbear

    It's a lot like Holocaust deniers - facts aren't going to get in the way of what they want to believe.

    ¡Cállate o despertarás la izquierda! - protest sign in Spain

    by gjohnsit on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 07:08:52 AM PDT

  •  Neoconfederates don't take rainbow confederacy... (0+ / 0-)

    ... Seriously.

    You are just picking up a dispute between racists and rainbow confederates down south
    and laughing at something that rednecks already scoff at.


    A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

    by Salo on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 07:49:25 AM PDT

  •  even in winter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    New Orleans daytime temperatures get up to the middle 60's.  So I doubt the clothing of these alleged troops would have been appropriate even then.

  •  Anti-Tom literature (8+ / 0-)

    I am reading a book from the 1850's Lectures on the Philosophy and Practice of Slavery, (available free from Project Gutenberg) a book which attempts to justify slavery.

    It's a load of crap, filled with logical fallacies and sophistry. He calls those opposed to slavery "socialists" and "communists". Sound familiar? I picked up this book to try to understand what was going on in the minds of slavery apologists. But it is striking how similar this book is to current conservative ideology.

    Then there are the works of Anti-Tom literature, books published in response to Uncle Tom's Cabin. The Anti-Tom literature attempts to persuade readers that slavery was good, that slaves were happy and better off under slavery.

    Apologists for slavery will at times point to the Anti-Tom literature as if it mutters the waters. "Who can tell what view is right?" they will ask. But we can tell. We can go back to what the slaves said and did. It's clear they weren't happy with slavery.

    And another point: the happy slave is a contradiction. If the slave was happy being a slave, there would be no need to enslave them.

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 08:11:42 AM PDT

  •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, KateCrashes

    This is something I have written about, too. See my book Beyond the Blogosphere. What boggles my mind is the deliberate falsification of photos to make a point that is pure fiction.

  •  Well done. I wasn't aware of this and am glad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    to now be informed. Thanks for showing me  that there is no end to the ways in which the Republicans have distorted, lied and propagandized their own party to push their demagoguery.

    As Romney and Ryan continue to do.

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 08:48:48 AM PDT

  •  This is a variation on a traditional (9+ / 0-)

    trope symptomatic of white Southern racial psychosis. The myth of the "loyal darky"

    In order for whites to function in a white supremacist system which, whether under slavery or the terrorist regime of Jim Crow, was at bottom dependent on African Americans, it was necessary to maintain  two mutually exclusive ideas simultaneously.

    In order to justify the brutality of the regime, white's had to believe that Black folks were dangerous, savage and prone to violence, needing to be controlled by violent means. At the same time, the day to day dependence of whites on Black folks produced a host of personal inter-actions that that gave the lie to this vicious caricature.

    How to rationalize the contradiction between the ideology dictated by the white supremacist system and personal experience? Voila, the "loyal darky." The black person(s) who by virtue of their "loyalty", that is, their perceived docility, amiability and presumed contentedness, "proved" that the regime, whether slavery or Jim Crow, really wasn't so bad. After all, "old Bessie" or "old Tom" were just like one of the family! They never complained! They must be happy! Ergo, if they were happy there was no reason other Black folks shouldn't be happy, except the ones that were "bad." Ergo, the system of white supremacy was legitimate, "natural", "right" and "just."

    If this sounds crazy, it's because it is crazy. Insane but psychologically and socially effectual. Submission and insubordination were invoked interchangeably to justify the Apartheid regime and to nullify the claims of simple humanity and decency.

    This instance of forgery underscores just how crucial this pathological line of "reasoning" is to the traditional Southern white supremacist outlook . Without the myth of the "loyal darky", the entire business is stripped of it's moral pretensions and stands revealed as the naked exercise of brutality and exploitation that it actually was. There's nothing left but the whip, the bloodhounds and the Klansman's noose.

    So why is it that we see it being revived in the present? Most likely because the "States Rights" and "small government" arguments so dear to the Conservative movement owe their historical genesis to the defense of slavery and, ultimately, of secession itself. In order to maintain the fiction that these arguments are the true  "libertarian" legacy of the American Revolution, it becomes necessary to deny the vicious and tyrannical character of the system they were designed to uphold.

    Hence the war "couldn't" have been about slavery and the supposed existence of "Black confederates" is "proof" of same.


    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 09:42:15 AM PDT

  •  Precious! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    Thank you so much!

    Character is what you are in the dark. Emilio Lizardo in Buckaroo Bonzai

    by Temmoku on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 09:49:18 AM PDT

  •  Opinions on this one? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, Temmoku

    A Civil War re-enactor sent me this low-rez image, saying he thought the shoes signaled poor re-enacting.  Other things strike me as "off," too, but the low-rez makes examining details fruitless.  Is it, perhaps, notorious?

    "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

    by KateCrashes on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 09:49:45 AM PDT

  •  More of the Louisiana Native Guards (6+ / 0-)

    The Louisiana Guards is a confusing bit of history, because there were two of them -- one Confederate, yes they did exist.  And one Union.  Both were free black soldiers from New Orleans.

    The Confederate version never fought, they only paraded.  The Union version were in the heroic assault on Port Hudson, during Grant's Vicksburg campaign.

    So while the photo shown of the Louisiana Guards is faked, the unit was real, even if its importance to the Confederacy has been vastly overstated.

    Civil War history can be a quagmire of competing facts -- so
    when one departs from historic orthodoxy, as the Southern Nationalists do, its possible to find facts that seem to fit newly invented hypothesis of the war.

    There is no credible evidence for black soldiers officially fighting for the South.  There are many anecdotal accounts of body servants -- ie slaves --  taking small parts in battles on their masters behalf.  Many of these servants did receive Confederate pensions.  

    The Confederate army also could not have functioned without massive amounts of slave labor to build fortifications and handle transport, supplies, cooking and the hard labor of war.  Those Southern Nationalists who claim hundreds of thousands of blacks fighting for the South are counting these guys, the slaves.  Who obviously had no choice in the matter -- and when they got a chance to escape, they often did.  

    Here's some more detail on the Louisiana Guards and others,  which I've summarized from the classic history on black soldiers, "The Negro in the Civil War", by Benjamin Quarles, 1953

    At the time war broke out, there were 182,000 free blacks living in the South.  Some of these identified with their home States over the nation, and hence transfered that allegiance to the new Confederacy.  In some States free blacks could -- and did -- own slaves themselves.  In other States their rights were becoming more and more restricted.  Volunteering to fight for the Confederacy was hence also a way to protect their tenuous position.  Many free blacks also raised money for the Confederacy.
    Throughout 1861, there were accounts of small groups of free blacks volunteering to raise troops for the Confederacy -- in Virginia, in Alabama, in Arkansas and in Louisiana.  But all these offers were turned down by the Confederate War Department -- various reasons were given, but the core dilema was slavery: with the rampant fear of slave revolt, arming free blacks seemed a dangerous precedent.  
    Louisiana is the only place where black troops were raised for the Confederacy.  The free creoles of New Orleans raised two regiments, outfitting and equipping them from their own funds.  They were offered in service to the Governor of Louisiana.  'They were called the Native Guards.  Here's the relevant passage from the book:
    "These companies were joined with the State militia and paraded with other Louisiana troops on November 23, 1861.  As they passed in review before Governor Thomas O. Moore, these Negro soldiers made a favorable impression; they had been well-drilled and they were smartly dressed".  

    These Native Guards were not accepted by the Confederate War Department and they were never used by the Governor, not even when Farragut was taking New Orleans.  

    When the Union took over New Orleans, General Butler raised black troops in the Fall of 1862.  The first group of free blacks to form a regiment were called "First Regiment Louisiana Native Guards".  They were later at the advance of the attack on the Confederate Port Hudson, an attack as brave -- and futile -- as that of the 54th Massachusetts on Fort Wagner.  But they proved that black soldiers could fight as well -- or better -- as white men.  

  •  Whenever I see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    Whenever I see a rebel flag hanging off the back of a pickup, my first thought is "what an asswipe".  

    After a meeting said people, I still have that opinion.  

  •  Spanish colonial rule (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    The reason a black militia could be formed in Louisiana is surely a legacy of Spanish colonial rule (1769-1803). Black militias were common in their former American colonies and it was due to Spanish laws that free blacks were to become such a powerful group, unlike anywhere else in the US. Many of their rights were taken away after the US aquired Louisiana, especially their militias:

    White New Orleanians quickly moved to disband the city's pretigious armed free black militia units, to limit manumission procedures, and to keep libres out of the territory and state.'
    Still, I'm guessing that the group identity of the "libres" was still strong enough that the Confederates could later try to use that and the history of free black militias under Spanish rule towards their advantage.

    For more on colonial rule (and this is where the above quote is from) see:

    •  Actually, that last paragraph (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril

      is off. Seems like the free blacks often owned slaves themselves. Thus:

      With secession and war impending, propertied free blacks, epecially those who owned slaves, rallied to the Southern
      They wrote in the New Orleans Daily Delta:
      The free colored population of Louisiana...own slaves, and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolition; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana...they will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-1815

      Quotes from Hanger's book cited above.

      •  there was a lot of ballyhoo in those days (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

        by Cartoon Peril on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 02:01:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure. But I think it's easy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cartoon Peril

          to forget that Louisiana was a Spanish colony right before the US aquired it. (The architecture of the French Quarter, as you probably know, is actually Spanish.) Hanger's book, from 1997, was the first to carefully study free black society in this time period. And she shows how unique the free black society was (compared to the US), especially their participation in free black militias. So free black militias were a BIG deal to their identity, as well as the fact that it gave them many other opportunities for social advancement.

          Since her book is about the colonial period, obviously she doesn't discuss the 19th century much, but she says the identity formed under Spanish rule had effects up to 1861 and up to today. That's why maybe what they wrote in that newspaper I quoted above maybe shouldn't be viewed through the normal Civil War lens that excludes the Spanish colonial rule (for example, the Wikipedia link to that Lousisiana militia says nothing about how common and important such militas were up until 1803).  

  •  Recently watched Ken Burn's Civil War (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    They do talk about how many slaves escaped and joined the Union army. Also mentioned is that towards the end of the war the South was so short of manpower that they started promising slaves freedom if they would fight for the South. I think there were a few that did join.

    Re-elect President Obama because we don't need another selfish President

    by Timmethy on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 01:53:58 PM PDT

  •  This is, of course, oral history within my family (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, cai, roadbear

    but on my father's side we supposedly had a confederate solider and was given his freedom to fight.... whether or not he was actually given a uniform or title or whatever, I don't know.  Probably not.

     He left, with his master's sons  and they went up and around Virginia and there met and married a  half indian, half black woman who was also free. He bought her back, a while later, because she was pregnant and so I guess he wished her to be cared for by our kin. When he left the second time, he took a younger brother back to fight.  I guess the younger brother was given freedom papers too, but the brother never made it home. He was killed where ever the fighting was at the time.  

    There are no photographs of him (he died young but after the war) but many of her, as she lived to be over 100...and  their children's children's children are my father's cousins.

    I am certain his only and main motivation was freedom and/or he was made to go to help wait on or protect the master's sons.  Oral history can be unreliable, at best, and detailed lost or changed...but I don't doubt there were some willing to fight for their own freedom or even the shred of hope that they might one day be freed.  I also don't doubt some were made to fight with the threat of families back home not being fed or being mistreated, if they didn't go fight.

    •  There are many reports of slaves running off with (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cai, KateCrashes, roadbear

      the Confederate army as it passed through towns, with the escaping persons not fighting at all but acting as cooks, etc., for pay, which of course they wouldn't get otherwise.  

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 02:18:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope the history department wises up soon. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    That's really the most depressing part -- liars gonna lie, but academics should seek the truth, or what's the point.

    © cai Visit to join the fight against global warming.

    by cai on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 03:31:34 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure some people believed the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    SNL skit (starring Phil Hartman -- I can't find a clip) about the special gay troop division of the north.  "Don't call us sissies!  We prefer fairies."

  •  They look so happy! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure in such instances SLAVES would never have been forced into anything at all!

  •  The font used at the bottom of the first picture (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    is available on most PCs. I used it myself in CorelDraw for a publication.  

    The more you look at it, the more your realize it's fake.

    God be with you, Occupiers. God IS with you.

    by Hohenzollern on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 05:48:55 PM PDT

  •  As a kid growing up in Texas, I wanted to be able (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, Ahianne

    to celebrate the "rebel" identity, without attaching the stain of slavery and Jim Crow and the KKK to it, and as kids we did.
    However, as I grew older, I couldn't maintain a view of the Confederacy that didn't include slavery.
    My family also admired Martin Luther King and felt a great deal of sympathy with blacks.  
    I don't think racism is always at the root of denialism on this, but denialism of this sort is always in service of racism. So we have to give it up as adults and not perpetrate it upon our children.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 07:18:12 PM PDT

  •  There were plenty of black teamsters and cooks, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, WB Reeves

    that is well documented, but I am not aware of any organized units of black soldiers actually fighting for the Confederacy.  

    If Gen. Patrick Cleburne had his way, that would not have been true, but he was killed at the Battle of Franklin, and the idea never really took hold, for obvious reasons.

    Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

    by SpamNunn on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 08:19:00 PM PDT

  •  the big problem with that whole "state's rights" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, CaliSista, Ahianne

    claim, as the basis for the "war of northern aggression" (ignoring the fact that the first shots fired in anger were fired, by SC soldiers, on federal ft. sumter), is that the "state's right" involved was the right to own slaves. further, all eleven state seccession documents list maintaining slavery as the reason for secession. damn, it is annoying how those pesky facts get in the way of a good story!

    the whole confederacy revisionism thing can be directly traced to the texas school board, the single largest purchaser of primary and secondary school textbooks in the country. it was they who insisted that publishers revise history textbooks, for use in the primary & secondary schools, to claim that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, but was about the ephemeral "state's rights", though never explicitly identifying the specific right(s) involved. to change this back to reality would have been inordinately expensive, so school boards around the country just accepted those history textbooks as they were.

    one advantage of e-textbooks is that it's cheap to revise them, so texas no longer has the hold on publishers that they once enjoyed. that, and the fact that texas, having cut its education budget to the bone, is no longer a huge buyer of school textbooks. their children's ignorance is the rest of the country's children's gain.

  •  Who is Barthe? (0+ / 0-)

    Darryl Barthe "The Curious Circumstances of the Louisiana Native Guard"

    The picture accompanies a lecture series. The caption on the picture doe s not make it clear if Barthe was talking about a chimerical regiment.

    The lecture title raises that possibility.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:14:04 AM PDT

  •  Well then it must be true (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    It was on the internet

    When Masoff began work on the textbook, she said she consulted a variety of sources -- history books, experts and the Internet. But when it came to one of the Civil War's most controversial themes -- the role of African Americans in the Confederacy -- she relied primarily on an Internet search.
    I am reading Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America's Vietnam.
    (Not for fourth graders, a bit long at 864 pages). However, 76 of those pages are footnotes, so I could if I was so inclined, read the source material.

    My friend Mike has this observation:

    "The reason people don't learn from the past, is because the past was a repetitious lie to begin with."
    Mike Hastie
    U.S. Army Medic
    Vietnam 1970-71

    White-collar conservatives flashing down the street, pointing their plastic finger at me..

    by BOHICA on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:21:22 AM PDT

  •  Barthe appears to be a mixed race grad student. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    not sure what he would consider the proper term. Creole?

    Photo here:

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:21:40 AM PDT

  •  Guy I ride with (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, CaliSista, Ahianne

    From Tennessee, claims to be a Libertarian. Posted a picture not to long ago depicting an African American man wearing a Confederate top coat and walking the streets of Tennessee carrying a Confederate flag.

    I asked him if that was real and he said yes. He went to tell me that, contrary to what the history books tell us slaves were rarely mistreated. That a lot of them fought for the Confederate Army, that Blacks may have been better off. That his great, great grandfather kept a diary and chronicled the advance of the Union army into Tennessee, that they owned slaves. Needless to say, I don't much talk to this clown anymore.

    Do folks, with a rudimentary High School education believe that Black American's fought in large numbers along side the Confederate Army? You betcha'! They really believe that shit.

  •  Reality Complex But Bottom Line The Same (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, PrahaPartizan, Ahianne

    Given the likely extent of race mixing in the South and the desperate Confederate need for soldiers as the war dragged on, it is likely some recruiters turned a blind eye to some recruits who we might today call "African-American" but whom at the time met the "one-drop rule."  There is also the likely case that at least some of the black servants who followed their masters to war, the complexity of human relationships being what it is, carried arms or took up arms when their masters perished.

    However it is likely these "recruits" were a very small exception and where they existed it would have been concentrated in the quartermaster and other support arms - certainly not at the visible edge of the CSA armies.  We know from the massacres of black Union troops at places like Fort Pillow and The Crater how white Confederates felt about the sight of blacks in arms.

    And with good reason.  Once Confederates admitted the black person could be a fine warrior, not only the rationalization for slavery fell away, but also the foundations of the bigotry that underlay social relations from top to bottom.

    So I wholeheartedly agree with the bottom line conclusion by real historians, which is that the claim that blacks fought for the South is bogus.

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:25:02 AM PDT

  •  Early Photographic Technical Detail (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, Ahianne

    Those of us accustomed to modern photographic techniques forget that many different chemical compound approaches have been used since photography was first invented in the early 1800s.  Each of those chemical compounds has a different response to the colors being exposed to it, some colors being shown quite strongly and others fading away.

    Most photographs of the mid-1800s used chemicals which responded poorly to blue wave-lengths, showing them as very light.  Just think of all of the photographs we've seen in our lifetimes of people like Civil War generals or notorious gunmen from the post-Civil War West who demonically stare at the camera with what appear to be totally washed out eyes.  Those folks had blue eyes, which the photo process being used could not record well.  If the photo being taken in the field were using one of those common mid-1800 processes, it could easily show a Union unit as wearing light colored uniforms even though the eye itself would show a medium to dark blue.  Us moderns don't even consider the technological changes which occurred in photography between 1850 and 1950 because the medium became ubiquitous and part of the background.

    "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

    by PrahaPartizan on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:40:39 AM PDT

  •  I never really know what to say (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    I mean, these people are just intentionally ignorant.

    Incarceration Nation has a Jail Jones to feed its Imprisonment Addiction

    by otto on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 06:20:45 AM PDT

  •  You're fooling yourself if you think the Union was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, kingfishstew

    fighting for the freedom of Southern blacks for their sakes.  New York rioters against conscription lynched black people in the streets for no other reason than to demonstrate their unwillingness to fight against slavery.  Blacks were only reluctantly allowed to fight in Union armies, and even then were mocked and called every derogatory name known now and more that have been largely forgotten.  Only after they proved themselves in combat did they earn a measure of grudging respect from whites in the north, and that was certainly not universal.  

    And by the way that attitude continued into modern times.  In World War II blacks were given the most menial jobs in the navy, and the famous Tuskegee airmen were likewise derided until they proved themselves in combat.

    There was no genuine concern for slaves as people in the north except among a minority of abolitionists, a minority whose numbers could not, and did not, trigger the Civil War.

    Clearly, the South was fighting to preserve slavery, for political, as well as economic reasons.  With the exception of abolitionists, the north was doing the same thing.  The war was over the United States' attempt to prevent new states from entering the union as slave states, not because of the slaves themselves, but because a majority of slave states would give the south control of the congress.

    Had the southern states controlled the congress they would have dismantled the tariff system that protected the northern industrial economy in favor of "free trade."  The north feared Southern trade with Europe, which would both reduce the demand for northern manufactured goods in the south, and raise the price of cotton to U.S. mills in the north.

    Nothing has changed.  The 1% "job creators" cry crocodile tears for the unemployed while getting rich by exporting our jobs.  They're not fighting for working people, any more than the politically powerful in the 1861 north were willing to fight a cataclysmic war because they were concerned about the living conditions of southern slaves.  Give me a break.

    So, please, spare me your northern self-righteous indignation.  We in the south with consciences and a sense of human decency are ashamed of what our ancestors did in the Civil War.  

    But it's because of our own modern sense of human decency, not an imaginary one that existed neither in the north nor the south in 1861 except among a small cadre of courageous northerners who were wise and courageous beyond their time, but whose political influence was miniscule.  

    If you're a direct descendent of those people, by all means, brag about it and even point fingers south if you wish.  Otherwise, you need to look in a 150-year-old mirror before you thump your own chest as a "proud yankee" while disparaging the population of an entire region of the country.

    I am a fifth generation descendent of a Texas cavalryman, whose brother, by the way, was a Union soldier from Indiana who moved to Texas after the war.  

    I feel the same way as any of you northerners do about the dignity of every human being.

    I suspect my two civil war ancestors on either side of the war also shared the opinion of human rights that was prevalent in all parts of the country at that time, and it was not a pretty one.

    Our ears hear symphonies through wireless headsets, but our knuckles still drag the ground.

    by ZedMont on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 07:21:02 AM PDT

    •  Your excellent points about the causes (7+ / 0-)

      for war and the likely sentiments of those involved get a little buried under what appears to be misplaced defensiveness towards the diarist. I reread the diary and did not find indications that the diarist was "chest thumping" or a "proud yankee". Maybe you've had prior dealings with those commenting and know their locations but with only this diary to examine, your outrage is puzzling and can possibly shut down what could be a valuable addition to the discussion.

      "Someone just turned the lights on in the bar and the sexiest state doesn't look so pretty anymore" CA Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Texas budget mess

      by CaliSista on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:45:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry. I should have pointed out that I (3+ / 0-)

        wasn't commenting on the diarist at all, but a comment got to me, and even that was probably not intended the way I took it.  I usually just overlook this stuff and move on, but I've been having a bad few days mentally and guess I was in a pissy mood.  I apologize for the tone.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention CaliSista.

        Our ears hear symphonies through wireless headsets, but our knuckles still drag the ground.

        by ZedMont on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:19:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry that you've been going through a rough (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CaliSista, ZedMont, Woody


          You didn't specify which comment got to you but I suspect it might have been mine. I didn't mince words and the truth as I see it is pretty harsh.

          I would like it to be understood that I wasn't speaking from some phoney sense of Yankee rectitude. I am a Southerner born and bred. I have two Great Grandfathers who both fought for the Confederacy. At least one of them was a slave owner.

          What I wrote was the product of my own experience and observations growing up as a white boy in the South. I sincerely regret if it caused you pain but our history is a painful one. Sometimes an infection must be lanced if there is to be healing.  

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:20:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You do make some good points, however (4+ / 0-)

      I do think the fact that Abolitionists were in the minority in the North doesn't mean they weren't influential. After all, they were operating in a world in which the most presitigious and powerful state in the world - the British Empire - had already abolished slavery and it certainly wasn't unreasonable for a pro-slavery Southern to see them as a legitimate threat to their way of life. Many people say "if the South didn't have slaves, the war would never of happened." I think it's just as true to say "If the North didn't have abolitionists" the war would of never happened.

      Its very true that majority of Northern whites who were antagonistic towards Southern whites at the time weren't antagonistic towards them because of their concern with the personal plight of black slaves. They were mostly antagonistic towards 'Slave Power', which is admittedly different from being non-racial and humanitarian. They were antagonistic towards the distortions and ramifications of what they termed 'Slave Power' in their own lives, both culturally and politically.

       As you pointed out, the conflicts of interest between the agrarian South and industrializing North were significant, with the Industrialistist of the north and Planters of the South having quite different prefered policies for the federal government. The North also hadn't gone through the secularization that would occur in the next century, and with the Second Great Awakining thrown into the mix, you had plenty of Northern moralists who, though not abolitionists, were very suspicious of slavery's effects on (white) Christian souls.

      Modern audiences  often derive the most pleasure from examples of contemporaries using modern humanitarian 'family of man' types arguments against slavery, but even the abolitionist knew (and sometimes lamented) that it was often easier to rile up a Northern audience against slavery by pointing our how slavery destroyed the sanctity of marriage for white women and made white men lecherous and slothful than pointing out how it affected blacks.

      Post-Reconstruction, perhaps most epitomized by the success of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation", the decendants of the North, and perhaps the nation of as a whole, has kind of agreed to sweep away some of the memory of the absolutely negative often times radical opinions of Southern culture and Southerners even non-Abolitionist northerners often held during the time. Some of it does linger in dumb backwards Southernor jokes you sometimes hear. But I do think its important to consider that in the decade running up to the civil war, while the Abolitionists themselves reamained a minority, they were simply the most extreme manifestation of a Northern culture that was growing more antagonistic towards and I wouldn't hesitate to use the word contemptuous of its Southern counterpart. And if they never quite succeeded in turning Northerners into Abolitionists write large, they did greatly contribute to those feelings of Northern cultural and political superiorty which enabled the North to maintain what was basically, on the battlefield, a bloodly 4-year long conquest of a foreign country whatever one wants to consider the Confederacy on paper.

      One final thought, outside a few cities like New York and Philedelphia, blacks were often largely an abstract conception for many Northern whites. Their racial theories, unlike Southern whites, were much more rarely tested or contested in reality. Outside of white immigrants competing with free and runaway blacks for low-wage jobs in the big cities, they would have few reasons or opprotunities to view blacks as anything but abstractions. Before the Civil War, the North was much whiter than it'd ever be again due to continual migration of black northward after the war. A trend which I don't think stopped until maybe within the last 10 years or so. I would venture to guess a percentage, but just surveying a few letters of Union soldiers will reveal that for many the first time they ever saw a black person was after their regiment had crossed the Mason-Dixon line and begun their service in the war.

      Therefore, while Abolitionism in its purest most humanitarian form of helping blacks was probably of limited importance the North's decesion and ability to persue the war, Abolitionism in so much as it operated as a springboard from which to attack the effects slavery had on whites probably shouldn't be over looked.

  •  I voted for "all the above" with a comment. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    Most (all?) heterosexual men of any age want to do it with Daisy Duke. So, it's unfair to have not included it with the other line items...

    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking. A. A. Milne

    by Memory Corrupted on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:24:41 AM PDT

Meteor Blades, Bruce Webb, Renee, PrahaPartizan, Chi, Phoenix Woman, ogre, eleming, copymark, Gooserock, Powered Grace, PeterHug, Emerson, kpardue, LynnS, oysterface, LeftHandedMan, Sandy on Signal, frisco, hubcap, niemann, alain2112, whenwego, mole333, chuckvw, shanikka, Nate Roberts, splashy, hangingchad, NYC Sophia, leevank, elmo, wdrath, KateCrashes, ybruti, mungley, vacantlook, AaronBa, sawgrass727, Ohkwai, gammarock, Skennet Boch, humphrey, marina, Unit Zero, PBen, schumann, kitchen sink think tank, Blue Jean, Bcre8ve, 1Nic Ven, YucatanMan, Gary Norton, Sun Tzu, jeff in nyc, Nowhere Man, martini, WB Reeves, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, myboo, Clytemnestra, edwardssl, Gorette, KenBee, Naniboujou, luckydog, blueoasis, Rosaura, JVolvo, Pilgrim X, doingbusinessas, Temmoku, sephius1, Habitat Vic, wildweasels, semioticjim, bnasley, TrueBlueMountaineer, uciguy30, Timmethy, leonard145b, JML9999, DBoon, craiger, rmonroe, trivium, weegeeone, Mr Stagger Lee, triplepoint, DanceHallKing, suesue, HarpboyAK, palantir, enufisenuf, statsone, LaFeminista, CamillesDad1, CaliSista, Calfacon, TheOpinionGuy, Denise Oliver Velez, kingfishstew, montecristo, Larsstephens, Just Bob, T Maysle, roadbear, psychbob, cai, Rainefenix, MsGrin, dwayne, redlum jak, oldmilitant, Quite Contrary, ozsea1, fwcetus, WestCider, vahana, La Gitane, poorbuster, mikejay611, armd, Haf2Read, Hohenzollern, enhydra lutris, MinistryOfTruth, GenuineRisk, old mark, Mentatmark, AgentOfProgress, OldDragon, anodnhajo, sow hat, Chrislove, a2nite, swampyankee, CA ridebalanced, Horace Boothroyd III, cherie clark, Forward is D not R, TBug, radical simplicity, Nztorg, OllieGarkey, dotdash2u, George3, Bisbonian, bumiputera, BobTheHappyDinosaur, Shawn Russell, MugWumpBlues, Lily O Lady, DamselleFly, semiAdult, alpaca farmer, countwebb, Late Again, Boundegar, SheilaKinBrooklyn, Jollie Ollie Orange, howabout, Wisco Wherls, bob152, ET3117, pragmaticidealist, Grizzard, Michael Chadwick, Brian1066

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site