White America's Obsession With The "Black Confederate" Myth

[xoxodede]

White America and their very active obsession and attempt to prove that enslaved Black men willingly fought for the Confederacy and help to remain enslaved --- is deranged and sickening.

Visit any history forum or Google "Black Civil War Soldiers" and you will see scores of threads and/or articles about them.

It's numerous books being dropped yearly on this myth - and I think one of the main reasons it hasn't stopped is the descendants of these forced enslaved men don't know their ancestor is being used to push a myth. And Black Americans are not calling this mess out.

Another reason, terrible fake historians like Louis Henry Gates - validate the myth.
https://www.theroot.com/yes-there-were-black-confederates-here-s-why-1790858546

The Confederacy did not want Black men fighting with them equally - and only in the last two weeks before the war ended did they allow non-white men to fight with them. And those non-white men were 99.9% mulatto - and didn't consider themselves "black".

Take for instance, Silas Chandler- he use to be the poster boy for the myth - until his descendants spoke out.

Uncivil: A new history podcast from Gimlet Media.

What do you think? Is it something we should speak out more against? Many Black children today are growing up thinking Black men fought to stay enslaved. It's not cool or mentally healthy.

@IllmaticDelta @Supper @Diasporan Royalty @im_sleep @CharlieManson @Get These Nets

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Will definitely read after classes.

 

[xoxodede]

​

These books are not out of self-publishing but History publishing houses. So, in the future - they will be looked upon as fact and reputable.

Here's Mr. Chandler again - being used and lied upon.

This ground-breaking book takes an insightful and close “New Look” at one of the most fascinating subjects of the Civil War–the long-overlooked battlefield contributions of the most forgotten fighting men of the Civil War, Black Confederates. With the release of the popular 1989 film Glory, the American public first learned about the heroism of the black troops of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry and their courageous assault on Fort Wagner, South Carolina, in July 1863. But what the American public failed to learn in viewing this popular film was the equally compelling saga of Black Confederates, including at least one defender, a free black soldier of the 1st South Carolina Artillery who defended Fort Wagner in July 1863.

Significantly, large numbers of Black Confederates, slave and free, had already been fighting on battlefields across the South for more than two years before the famous assault of the 54th Massachusetts on Fort Wagner, including the war’s first major battle at Bull Run. Although the vast of majority blacks served the Confederacy in menial and support roles, Black Confederates, free and slave, fought from 1861 to 1865 in regiments (infantry, cavalry, and artillery) that represented every Southern state.

American History Books - America Through Time - Shop Today​

 

[xoxodede]

 

[Akata Man Bromo]

Subs for when I get off work

 

[xoxodede]

From one of my Black History mentors:

96% of the African descent population in the Confederacy was enslaved. There were 3,653,870 people of African descent in the CSA, 3,521,110 enslaved, 132,760 free. Slave enlistment was illegal until March 1865. (R. E. Lee surrendered in April 1865.)

Of the 132,760 free coloreds in the CSA, approximately 20% would have been men of military age, around 26,552 or so. Mulattoes would have been a subset of this population.

There is actual army correspondence on the subject of mulattoes and CSA army enlistment. Mobile, Alabama, along with New Orleans and Charleston, were Confederate cities with a sizable mixed-race population. Mixed-race people in the southern portions of Louisiana and Alabama were often called creoles or black creoles. Many of them were so light that they could pass for white, and often had much more in common with their white cousins than with their black cousins. Importantly, many of these creoles wanted to serve in the armed forces of the Confederate States of America (CSA).

This led Dabney H. Maury, a CSA Major-General, to formally request that creoles be used as soldiers in the CSA armed forces. This is his request, followed by the answer he got from the Confederate government:

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF,
Mobile, Ala., November 7, 1863.
General SAMUEL COOPER,
Adjt. and Insp. Gen., C.S. Army, Richmond, Va.:

GENERAL: I again call your attention to my request to accept into the Confederate service the company of creoles of Mobile, because I think that perhaps the War Department is not exactly informed about the people I have reference to. When Spain ceded this territory to the United States in 1803, the creoles were guaranteed all the immunities and privileges of the citizens of the United States, and have continued to enjoy them up to this time. They have, many of them, negro blood in the degree which disqualifies other persons of negro race from the rights of citizens, but they do not stand here on the footing of negroes. They are very anxious to enter the Confederate service, and I propose to make heavy artillerists of them, for which they will be admirably qualified. Please let me hear at your earliest convenience if I may have them enrolled in a company, or in companies if I can find enough of them to make more than one company.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
DABNEY H. MAURY,
Major-General.

[First indorsement.]
ADJUTANT AND INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE,
November 20, 1863.
Respectfully submitted to the Secretary of War. An application to have a company of creoles at Mobile accepted into Confederate service.
By order, &c.:
JOHN W. RIELY,
Captain and Assistant Adjutant-General.​

********
This is the response to the above correspondence:

[Second indorsement.]
[NOVEMBER] 24, 1863.
Our position with the North and before the world will not allow the employment as armed soldiers of negroes. If these creoles can be naturally and properly discriminated from negroes, the authority may be considered as conferred; otherwise not, unless you can enlist them as “navvies” (to use the English term) or for subordinate working purposes. {navvy -Brit., dated: a laborer employed in the excavation and construction of a road, railroad, or canal.}

J. A. S.,
Secretary.

Source: Official Records of the Rebellion, series 4, volume 2, page 941

The J. A. S. in the above is CSA Secretary of War James Seddon. Seddon is asked: can we use freemen as soldiers? Seddon’s reply: no… unless they can pass for white (which many creoles could do). I guess this is the Confederate version of don’t ask, don’t tell.​

It is important to understand that while identifiable people of mixed descent were denied enlistment as a matter of Confederate policy, they might still have been used as laborers. We know that a number of free blacks were impressed into, or even volunteered for, labor duty; but I have yet to see a reliable count of them.

The bottom line is that, the count of identifiably "colored" enlisted men in the CSA army was limited by the small count of such men and Confederate policy.

(As an aside, I will note that two-thirds of the CSA free black population lived in just two states: North Carolina and Virginia. And 88% of the CSA free black population lived in just four states: North Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Any efforts to locate free black enlistees would need to focus on those 4 states.)

Check his blog out here: Jubilo! The Emancipation Century

 

[im_sleep]

I’ll chime in later tonight, good thread

 

[Piff Perkins]

It's an obvious attempt to argue that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery or race. And to absolve Confederate supporters today. White trash re-writing history. And they've been pretty successful, look at public school textbooks throughout much of the country. Some don't even call slaves "slaves."

"Servants"

 

[King of Creampies]

Is there supposed to be a link for the post or is this just a discussion?

I will watch thread and chime in later. This is a very good discussion.

 

[xoxodede]

It's an obvious attempt to argue that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery or race. And to absolve Confederate supporters today. White trash re-writing history. And they've been pretty successful, look at public school textbooks throughout much of the country. Some don't even call slaves "slaves."

"Servants"

Exactly. But, this time we have a chance to stop it and speak up/out.

“Masters put guns to (the heads of slaves) to make them shoot Yankees.”

 

[xoxodede]

Is there supposed to be a link for the post or is this just a discussion?

I will watch thread and chime in later. This is a very good discussion.

Just a discussion.

It's something that has been bothering me over the last couple of years - and every year the myth is spreading and it's betting bigger.

White America is still trying to put up fake monuments to "Black Confederates" in the South to this day.

 

[xoxodede]

We also have Black people who believe and help spread the myth. These sad victims of White Supremacy get paid by Southern Heritage Groups.

Meet Earl ljames:

From CWMemory: The Return of Earl Ijames’s “Colored Confederates”
Those of you who have followed this blog and commentary about the myth of the black Confederate soldier are all too familiar with Earl Ijames, who is a curator at the North Carolina Museum of History in Raleigh. Ijames claims to be an expert on what he refers to as “Confederates of Color.” It is an incredibly confusing and unhelpful reference. He is a popular speaker and beloved by Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Abbeville Institute. This past summer Ijames addressed the latter at their annual summer institute. [The video below was uploaded to YouTube on 12/21] I have little doubt that the audience enjoyed his presentation, but it should come as no surprise that it is an absolute mess.

Ijames’s talk is heavy on personal stories and individual accounts, but fails to present much in terms of historical context, especially when it comes to understanding the evolution of the Confederacy’s position on the role of free and enslaved blacks. Ijames fails to address the very public debate that took place in the Confederacy from early 1864 through to close to the end of the war about, slavery, white supremacy, and the place of blacks in the Confederate army. Not surprisingly, this talk also contains very little serious analysis of his sources.

More disturbing are the outright mistakes and distortions. Ijames refers to the fall of New Orleans as having taken place in 1861 and the First Confiscation Act as being passed in 1862. Early on he references the famous photograph of the Louisiana Native Guard that is actually a photograph of Union soldiers that has been intentionally altered. Wow!
​

Meet H. K. Edgerton:



He was even on the C.O.W.S.:

 

[Black Panther]

Glad I was taught correctly about the Civil War. :bpwhew:

This is part of an ongoing attempt by certain whites to trivialize Black suffering and de-legitimize claims of racism.

 

[Piff Perkins]

We also have Black people who believe and help spread the myth. These sad victims of White Supremacy get paid by Southern Heritage Groups.

Meet Earl ljames:

From CWMemory: The Return of Earl Ijames’s “Colored Confederates”
Those of you who have followed this blog and commentary about the myth of the black Confederate soldier are all too familiar with Earl Ijames, who is a curator at the North Carolina Museum of History in Raleigh. Ijames claims to be an expert on what he refers to as “Confederates of Color.” It is an incredibly confusing and unhelpful reference. He is a popular speaker and beloved by Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Abbeville Institute. This past summer Ijames addressed the latter at their annual summer institute. [The video below was uploaded to YouTube on 12/21] I have little doubt that the audience enjoyed his presentation, but it should come as no surprise that it is an absolute mess.

Ijames’s talk is heavy on personal stories and individual accounts, but fails to present much in terms of historical context, especially when it comes to understanding the evolution of the Confederacy’s position on the role of free and enslaved blacks. Ijames fails to address the very public debate that took place in the Confederacy from early 1864 through to close to the end of the war about, slavery, white supremacy, and the place of blacks in the Confederate army. Not surprisingly, this talk also contains very little serious analysis of his sources.

More disturbing are the outright mistakes and distortions. Ijames refers to the fall of New Orleans as having taken place in 1861 and the First Confiscation Act as being passed in 1862. Early on he references the famous photograph of the Louisiana Native Guard that is actually a photograph of Union soldiers that has been intentionally altered. Wow!
​

Meet H. K. Edgerton:



He was even on the C.O.W.S.:

They aren't victims, they're con men. A lot of people have recognized old white conservatives are saps who have money, which they love to give to like minded black people in order to prove they aren't racist. Or to make them feel better about being racist.

 

[xoxodede]

Glad I was taught correctly about the Civil War. :bpwhew:

This is part of an ongoing attempt by certain whites to trivialize Black suffering and de-legitimize claims of racism.

And it's a working tactic to rewrite history and speak for our ancestors. They are going after Black children too.

This is a real comic: Gunhawks Introduces Black Confederates

Someone reading the Gunhawks comic might well think that lots of plantations in the South where "there was never any mention of slavery... and all the blacks came and went as they pleased... in addition to being paid for their work..." There may well have been a plantation out there like that, but it would have been an outlier, for sure.