Black Confederates in Newspapers split from Searching for Black Confederates by Kevin Levin

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
571
Reaction score
738
I wonder if laws concerning arming slaves, changed in some way? ;)
No they were not soldiers, so why work so hard to make them as such, or try to get folk to BELIEVE they were?

Kevin Dally
You're way too hung up on the word "soldier". I'm perfectly content with the wording in the article: "negroes bearing arms in the rebel army."
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
571
Reaction score
738
One of the habits I've had to break myself of is automatically mentally adding the word "soldier" any time I see the term "black Confederate", because I no longer see that as simply a military term, I know a lot of people do, but I don't, so that's something to keep in mind when we're discussing this topic. I'm not going to see it in exactly the same way you do.

A black Confederate could be civilian or military, just as a white Confederate could be civilian or military.
 

Canteen

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
42
Reaction score
58
You're way too hung up on the word "soldier". I'm perfectly content with the wording in the article: "negroes bearing arms in the rebel army."
And to what end are you hoping to achieve with your addiction to finding the mythical black confederate? You source everything imaginable BUT what the laws of the confederacy was in arming slaves, to dodging around the confederate government's official stand on the matter of "negroes bearing arms in the rebel army"? I don't see you quoting the confederate governments laws, no, you go to newspaper articles, and other sources that are questionable.

Kevin Dally
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
571
Reaction score
738
And to what end are you hoping to achieve
To learn. It's a mystery and I'm exploring it. And as I've said before, if people weren't so worked up about this topic and hadn't made it so controversial, I probably would never have taken any notice. I suppose I should be grateful, it's been very interesting so far.
 

Canteen

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
42
Reaction score
58
To learn. It's a mystery and I'm exploring it. And as I've said before, if people weren't so worked up about this topic and hadn't made it so controversial, I probably would never have taken any notice. I suppose I should be grateful, it's been very interesting so far.
The whole "Black Confederate" issue is used to modify history for devious aims by the biggest culprit... the pro confederate heritage sect. Those folk too often want to deviate history to take a black/slave in the ranks, and shove it down peoples throats that because of this so called "integration" in the ranks, the South didn't secede, or fight for slavery. The SCV/UDC rush to get veterans markers for so-called "black confederate soldiers" without considering the laws of the Confederate Government on arming slaves, enlistment rules.

This has been going on for a good while, nothing really new about this. Levin brings this out in his book, exposing the ploy.

It's one thing to find out what it was blacks did in the war, free, or slave, and make that known, I have stated that is OK. But it's a travesty to take that info, and work at turning it into something that wasn't true, like giving them the status of equal, enlisted, bonafide soldiers, or "negroes bearing arms", like it was fully accepted. It often denies the true relationship between the whites, and the white supremacy that ran the South, and the blacks/slaves forced subservience to that.

If in all of your newspaper compilation you had stopped from time to time and reminded folk what is reported, went against what the confederate government policy was, I'd be ok with what you are doing.

I don't remember you ever doing that, and seemingly pushed back at folk like me, that do not believe that blacks/slaves were all armed soldiers like the whites. You state from these articles that folk widely believed they were, thus making it somehow true and widely accepted, and act on that. I do not believe a black/slave who picked up a weapon and fired at a yank was a soldier, or even a combatant in the confederacy's eyes, or deserving such a title, because the confederacy sure didn't believe so.

I look at it in a historical context of the time, NOT thru a modern lense, wishing to change history.

Kevin Dally
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
571
Reaction score
738
The whole "Black Confederate" issue is used to modify history for devious aims by the biggest culprit... the pro confederate heritage sect.
I read this claim over and over again, but honestly I've seen the warning against this more often than I've actually seen people make the claim. It happens, but I don't think it's as prevalent as your constant complaints about it would suggest. And the idea that some might misuse the information is not an argument for ignoring it. I actually had someone object way back on CWT when I started posting the articles I was finding, because they thought what I found could be misused. In other words, leave the information buried in the newspapers rather than dig it up and make it public for the sake of learning. Censor historical information.

It's one thing to find out what it was blacks did in the war, free, or slave, and make that known, I have stated that is OK. But it's a travesty to take that info, and work at turning it into something that wasn't true, like giving them the status of equal, enlisted, bonafide soldiers, or "negroes bearing arms", like it was fully accepted. It often denies the true relationship between the whites, and the white supremacy that ran the South, and the blacks/slaves forced subservience to that.
If I've done that, please give us a link to where I did so.

If in all of your newspaper compilation you had stopped from time to time and reminded folk what is reported, went against what the confederate government policy was, I'd be ok with what you are doing.
I hardly need to put any sort of disclaimer given how often someone raises objections. In any case, it's my research, I'm the one posting it, and I'll do it in my own way. I'm not going to put disclaimers every time I post something on this topic, and to be honest I find the idea more than a little absurd.

You state from these articles that folk widely believed they were,
I think it's self evident that some people who printed these stories believed what they were writing, and some readers believed as well. The idea that we could have four years of different types of stories about various types of black combatants for the South and no one believe a word of it is nonsense. It is also impossible to believe that all we have are four years of propaganda, and that every article about black Southern combatants is just one long running attempt to convince Lincoln to arm the slaves. Clearly, some people did not believe what they were publishing, but some did believe what they were writing and reading. It's impossible for the situation to be anything else.

thus making it somehow true
I have never claimed that belief made it all true. I maintain and continue to maintain that these stories must be taken on a case by case basis, and that many are credible while some are clearly false. I've said that many times, that is my stated position. If you have drawn another conclusion, that's on you, not me.

I do not believe a black/slave who picked up a weapon and fired at a yank was a soldier, or even a combatant in the confederacy's eyes, or deserving such a title, because the confederacy sure didn't believe so.
A combatant and a soldier are not necessarily the same thing. One definition of "combatant" = "a person engaged in fighting during a war" and says nothing about any official government-recognized status. It's entirely accurate to call a slave, who was not a soldier, who went into combat, a combatant.
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,447
Reaction score
947
A combatant and a soldier are not necessarily the same thing. One definition of "combatant" = "a person engaged in fighting during a war" and says nothing about any official government-recognized status. It's entirely accurate to call a slave, who was not a soldier, who went into combat, a combatant.
you do it again - everybody but you uses the word combatant in the definition of the geneva convention of 1949 (article 43 additional protocol 1)
"Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities."
that is how the word is understood in the 21st century. with your very own definition (granted that you talk about a war before that) you are not moving goalposts - you are playing badmington. the question remains: are you doing it intentionally?

edit: that has got nothing to do with your research (which i value greatly) but with the conclusions you draw from said research.
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
571
Reaction score
738
you do it again - everybody but you uses the word combatant in the definition of the geneva convention of 1949 (article 43 additional protocol 1)
I'm just using the dictionary definition and applying it to this 19th century war. I chose the term precisely because "soldier" was not accurate, but we have men essentially acting as soldiers, so it seemed an appropriate description, and still does.

If there's a better term to describe a slave who is not a soldier essentially acting as one for a battle, I'm open to using that instead.

Various definitions of combatant, all of which seem entirely appropriate to me:

Cambridge dictionary: a person who fights in a war

Collins dictionary: A combatant is a person, group, or country that takes part in the fighting in a war.

Oxford dictionary: A person or nation engaged in fighting during a war, or A person engaged in conflict or competition with another.

Mirriam-Webster: one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,447
Reaction score
947
I'm just using the dictionary definition and applying it to this 19th century war. I chose the term precisely because "soldier" was not accurate, but we have men essentially acting as soldiers, so it seemed an appropriate description, and still does.

If there's a better term to describe a slave who is not a soldier essentially acting as one for a battle, I'm open to using that instead.
may be you need a better dictionary problem is (in any language) we want single words to describe things and not sentences: people of afridian heritage who took up arms in combat for whatever reason just doesn't cut it. but if we use well known words in a redifined meaning we probably need a disclaimer in each and every post and that doesn't work either. that is one of the reasons why scientists come up with new words time and again.

... obviously i don't know a proper word or can come up with a new one either http://forum.jaggedalliance.de/posting.php?mode=smilies&f=7&sid=1990659de13bde345b17d7de94d5b471#
 

Tom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
424
Reaction score
475
From Military Dictionary by William Duane published in 1810.
"Soldier now generally signifies any military man."

Soldier1.jpg
 

Tom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
424
Reaction score
475
Articles of War
"Art. 17. Any officer who shall presume to muster a person as a soldier who is not a soldier, shall be deemed guilty of having made a false muster, and shall suffer accordingly."

Muster Roll of....
….
Corporal....
Private....
Private....
Private....
Musician....
Cook....
….
 

Canteen

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2019
Messages
42
Reaction score
58
Articles of War
"Art. 17. Any officer who shall presume to muster a person as a soldier who is not a soldier, shall be deemed guilty of having made a false muster, and shall suffer accordingly."

Muster Roll of....
….
Corporal....
Private....
Private....
Private....
Musician....
Cook....
….
Are those Confederate Articles of war? Does that fit into the white supremacy mindset of the confederacy, their enlistment rules?

Kevin Dally
 

Al Mackey

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2019
Messages
569
Reaction score
529
I read this claim over and over again, but honestly I've seen the warning against this more often than I've actually seen people make the claim. It happens, but I don't think it's as prevalent as your constant complaints about it would suggest. And the idea that some might misuse the information is not an argument for ignoring it. I actually had someone object way back on CWT when I started posting the articles I was finding, because they thought what I found could be misused. In other words, leave the information buried in the newspapers rather than dig it up and make it public for the sake of learning. Censor historical information.
Nearly every time some idiot claims the war had nothing to do with slavery they also bring up the black confederate myth. The two go hand-in-hand.


I think it's self evident that some people who printed these stories believed what they were writing, and some readers believed as well.
Which do you think did not believe what they were printing?

I have never claimed that belief made it all true. I maintain and continue to maintain that these stories must be taken on a case by case basis, and that many are credible while some are clearly false. I've said that many times, that is my stated position. If you have drawn another conclusion, that's on you, not me.
Which of the articles you posted are ones you believe are "clearly false?"

A combatant and a soldier are not necessarily the same thing. One definition of "combatant" = "a person engaged in fighting during a war" and says nothing about any official government-recognized status. It's entirely accurate to call a slave, who was not a soldier, who went into combat, a combatant.
No, it's not. A civilian may effectively become a combatant if they participate in continuous operations. A civilian who may fight a few times is not a combatant.

"In its in-depth study, the ICRC describes two scenarios in which a civilian loses immunity from attack. The first occurs when an individual effectively becomes a combatant by assuming a continuous combat function in an organized armed group. By doing so, that individual forfeits his civilian status and may be targeted at any time unless he effectively withdraws from the armed group. In the second scenario, a civilian loses his protection for such time as he directly participates in hostilities. In that case, a civilian does not forfeit his civilian status, but loses his immunity from direct attack for as long as he is directly participating in hostilities. In order to constitute direct participation in hostilities, one’s actions must satisfy three criteria: a threshold of harm, a direct causal link between the act and the harm likely to result, and a belligerent nexus."

http://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Totality_of_the_Circumstances_FINAL.pdf

A slave who may have picked up a rifle is not a combatant.

A slave who was put into line once or twice because of desperation on the part of the white commander is not a combatant.

A body servant is not a combatant.

An enslaved musician or teamster is not a combatant.
 

Al Mackey

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2019
Messages
569
Reaction score
529
Articles of War
"Art. 17. Any officer who shall presume to muster a person as a soldier who is not a soldier, shall be deemed guilty of having made a false muster, and shall suffer accordingly."

Muster Roll of....
….
Corporal....
Private....
Private....
Private....
Musician....
Cook....
….
Superseded by confederate law authorizing mustering African Americans as musicians, cooks, and teamsters to allow white men to be the soldiers.
 

Al Mackey

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2019
Messages
569
Reaction score
529
If we're to consider the definitions in place at the time, confederates themselves did not consider blacks to be either soldiers or combatants, at least until the final weeks of the war.
 
Top