Secession/Independence is a right

Do you believe in secession ?


  • Total voters
    9

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
consolidated Kentucky & Virginia?
No. In this country we commonly understand "integrated" to mean by race, that is; blacks among whites and whites among blacks. Though Kentucky was at one point an extension of Virginia the colony, as states they were never consolidated.

You know this has little to do with either secession or "Black Confederates" that it's fair to ask why you brought it up. If you're being paid to target sites based on the kind of word hits that are no doubt found in a forum like this we get it, but understand that here we do get it. oops.
 
Last edited:

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,991
Reaction score
1,171
No. In this country we commonly understand "integrated" to mean by race, that is; blacks among whites and whites among blacks. Though Kentucky was at one point an extension of Virginia the colony, as states they were never consolidated.

You know this has little to do with either secession or "Black Confederates" that it's fair to ask why you brought it up. If you're being paid to target sites based on the kind of word hits that are no doubt found in a forum like this we get it, but understand that here we do get it. oops.
note to myself: I should avoid sarcasm
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
No soldier was ever mustered in at $18 a month on either side! Obviously it would have been $13 a month at best. Let's suppose that was a typo or misread of the original document. But even then, were these then ghost regiments with no designation? Is there any corroborating account whatsoever? These regiments never happened -- there's no record of a black Confederate regiment in Tennessee anywhere.



Horace Greeley was a Northern newspaper editor. He didn't see this for himself, and he or his reporters didn't have access to the rebel camps to know what they were seeing, and there's no corroboration for the info in his editorial. Apparently there was no name or designate for this supposed black regiment,and of course there never would have been an integrated unit in the Confederate army. Look, this is an op-ed from an editor known to be highly politicized at the time. Shouldn't basic research on a source happen before citing?
Again they were mixed in. and that was Tennessee not every state every where. I noticed all most on here do when it comes to this subject is try to question by saying well did they see it ? then well he was too far away ? but these excuses don't trump anything I've put. And there is plenty more to put.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Here is more accounts and info from the time...NEGRO REGIMENTS IN THE REBEL ARMY...“During the fight the battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by [*in italics*] two rebel negro regiments. [*end italics*]...a large number, perhaps one-fourth, of Van Dorn’s force were [*in italics*] negro soldiers [*end italics*]...THE FIRST AFRICAN SOLDIERS IN NASHVILLE – From the Nashville Union...
If they knew these to be negro regiments and negro soldiers then why did they feel it necessary to put italics on "two rebel negro regiments" and "negro soldiers." Obviously it's because they had no access to Van Dorn's camp directly to know if what they were reporting was verifiable. Nobody disputes that there were many blacks in Confederate camps, but if they can't be finally confirmed as enlisted soldiers even by a Southern newspaper, how can we make the claim using the modern-invented term "Black Confederates" with any honesty?

...Secession and fire-eating pro-Slavery journal, the Nashville Union and American, edited and published by J. O. Griffith, F. C. Dunnington, John C. Burch, Leon Trousdale, and Thomas S. Marr, dated April 25, 1861, we find the following editorial paragraph:..Newspapers below...“COLORED PATRIOTISM!”...(Jim Dunge) is raising a company of free negroes to fight Lincoln’s men...[and]...“Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette” for 31 August 1863: NEGRO TROOPS IN REBELDOM–The Mobile Register says: “The negro is no longer an object of small talk in the South. The people of the South have a place for him, and that is in the army...
So, the first reference is from "a secession and fire-eating pro-Slavery journal," which of course means that we'll dismiss that one out-of-hand, as you should have. The second reference is an Indianapolis paper citing a Mobile paper op-ed that presumed to pose as the voice of Southerners who saw a place for the negro in the Confederate army. That's not remotely any kind of evidence that negroes were ever put into the army as soldiers, it's merely an opinion of the paper. So again, there's no proof in that that would enable the modern-invented term "Black Confederates" to be applied with any honesty.

Give us actual "Black Confederate" muster rolls or payrolls, or unit designations as written in period documentation. For the other kinds of evidence you've offered at least provide a separate source that corroborates the same thing. I mean even for just one of the stories. Do this for yourself, it's not even about what we want.

If you can't even do those things, at least here publicly acknowledge that the term "Black Confederate" was never used in CW times, that it is a modern invention, so that we might take your other claims more seriously (...hey, at least the guy knows the term "Black Confederate" is not a period!).
 
Last edited:

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,408
Reaction score
3,042
first: Hispanics are white - period
second: the Cherokee mounted rifles as well as every other Injun on both had something to gain and normally a open record with other Injuns on the other side

Does anybody know whether the Injuns had muster roles? If yes were they called Injuns?

If the bolted part is yes I honestly ask how anybody can still believe in the black confederade myth / nosense / fraud.
Most were - some under their own commanders, like Stand Watie. Some were under white commanders. One of the strategies the Confederates wanted to do was stir up the tribes in the West and Southwest against the Union. Didn't work - they were already stirred up against both sides! But, there were Indians in white units. Curiously maybe, Forrest's escort was the most integrated on either side. Not only did he put in black servants but also Natives - and he had Cherokee relatives himself. Many times whites wouldn't serve with people a shade too dark for them but in Forrest's army it was different. If you didn't like the company you were keeping, you'd better not say anything about it! Shut up and fight...
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Again they were mixed in. and that was Tennessee not every state every where. I noticed all most on here do when it comes to this subject is try to question by saying well did they see it ? then well he was too far away ? ...
...fair questions: "well did they see it? then well he was too far away?"

These are things that you should be vetting yourself. Again, it's not about us.
 

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
Black Confederate was most likely not widely used because blacks were referred to as Negroes. There was an NCO James Washington, Co. D 34th Texas Cavalry, "Terrell's Texas Cavalry". That man was a sergeant.
 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,991
Reaction score
1,171
Black Confederate was most likely not widely used because blacks were referred to as Negroes. There was an NCO James Washington, Co. D 34th Texas Cavalry, "Terrell's Texas Cavalry". That man was a sergeant.
didn't I mention something about proper quoting?

in 1749 a greenskinned alien from arcturus joined what in 1916 was known as the 1rst Illinois is not a proper quote
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Black Confederate was most likely not widely used because blacks were referred to as Negroes...
Thanks for admitting that, but that it was not used is more accurate, of course.

Going forward, we'll stick with the modern fad name regardless?
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
...I thought black confederates wher the guys constantely playing Pershing...black Jack Pershing that is...oops wrong timeline
...when it would have been so easy to stick to the right timeline, the "Black Jack" of the Civil War:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/john-logan

Back in the day such monikers applied to men of black head and facial hair and black eyes. Not a thought of race in it.

And again, it's fair to ask why you brought it up. If you're so determined to ramp this discussion so far off topic, at least be clever about it.
 
Last edited:

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,408
Reaction score
3,042
Ah, yes! Forgot about Black Jack Logan - that was for his jet black hair and eyes, though. He and Forrest went head-on at Ft Donelson and neither was a push-over. Logan was badly wounded and Forrest opened up the line Logan was holding. There was also Black Bob McColloch - and Red, White...don't think there was a blue...
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
...when it would have been so easy to stick to the right timeline, the "Black Jack" of the Civil War:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/john-logan

Back in the day such monikers applied to men of black head and facial hair and black eyes. Not a thought of race in it.

And again, it's fair to ask why you brought it up. If you're so determined to ramp this discussion so far off topic, at least be clever about it.
Jeez, byron ed. Lighten up. Maybe then you could recognize a joke.
 
Top