Update: Andy Hall of Dead Confederates has added some very insightful comments about Thomas Tobe, Please see the comments.
Today we have the pension files of Thomas Tobe. Thomas enlisted in Company G of Holcombe’s Legion in August, 1861 and remained with the armies until the surrender at Appomattox in April of 1865. On the second page of his pension application the pension board states he was a bona fide Soldier and a free negro who volunteered for this company an served until the end of the war. A quick rundown of the men in Company G according to this website does not list a Thomas Tobe with Company G. The website does list (although spelt wrong) Tobe’s apparent Captain, Capt. Heller. Also, according to the same website…
“The South Carolina 7th Cavalry Regiment was organized by the increase in the Calvary Battaltion of the Holcombe Legion to a regiment on March 18, 1864, per S.O. #65, Adjutant and Inspector’s General’s Office. The unit surrendered at Appomattox Court House, Virginia on April 9, 1865….”
You can also read the following history of Holcombe’s Legion in this book on Google Books.
To this point I have yet to find a muster roll or roster of Company G that includes Thomas Tobe either in Holcombe’s Legion or the 7th SC Cavalry. What does this mean? I cannot say at this time. But, it does say that he served until the surrender at Appomattox so maybe he was paroled there. According to the NPS/Appomattox website the following slave and free negroes were paroled after the surrender.
Blacks paroled at Appomattox Court House include thirty-nine slaves and free blacks
Quartermaster’s Department of the Third Corps Ordinance : 16 Slaves (unnamed) in public service
Eighteenth Georgia Battalion enlisted for the War: Joe Parkman Co. A; Henry Williams Co. B, George Waddell Co. A; Louis Gardeen Co. C– all musicians.
James Polk Co. B, William Read Co. C; Scipio Africanus Co. B; John Lery Co. A, Quartermaster Department– all cooks
Gary’s Calvary Brigade: James Barabsha; Guard Bob (slave of David Bridges); Thomas Bowen, teamster; Burress Bowen, teamster; Jim (slave of T.M. Dettrick),teamster; John Bowen, teamster; Jack Caldwell, teamster; Solomon Wright, blacksmith
Donaldson Artillery, Company B: H. Blum, cook; Jno. Mamply, servant; L. Leport, servant; Jno. Semple, servant
Detached Naval Brigade privates attached to Naval Brigade: Charles Cleoper, Joseph Johnson, James Hicks
If you have any information that might help clear up the story of Thomas Tobe, please feel free to contact me here through the blog or on Facebook.
Corey — thanks for pursuing this subject, in this way. I’ll probably have more to add as I can.
Add away Andy, the more the better. But the funny thing is that I have been recently accused of racism because I am “trying to debunk black confederates” and wipe them out of history. Just the opposite I suppose…trying to bring them to light so that their true stories can be told.
Before getting into Thomas Tobe specifically, it’s important to look at Civil War pensions generally and remember how they were handled. This will be familiar ground to you, but it bears repeating, because it underscores why Confederate pension applications are not especially reliable sources for determining a man’s status in 1861-65.
Pensions for Union soldiers was handled by a central office within the federal government, where each claimant’s service was checked against official records compiled by the War Department. It was a centralized operation, with objective standards of service verification, with relatively little opportunity for personal influence i determining whether a man’s application was approved.
The situation was very different in the South, where pensions were set up by the individual states. Some states allowed pensions for black servants and other non-combatants, while others did not. Pensions were set authorized at different times, and so on. Generally speaking, each county or district was set up with its own pension board to evaluate and decide local cases. Because Confederate service records were somewhat fragmentary, and were not readily available to the local boards in any case, pensions were generally awarded based on the affidavit of witnesses to the man’s claimed service. Ideally these witnesses were other soldiers who had served in the same unit as the applicant, but often they were not. It was a weak system, with local political appointees issuing state pensions based on the affidavits of men who may or may not have actual first-hand knowledge of the applicants’ claims. Confederate pension records, absent corroborating documentation, cannot by themselves be considered definitive proof of the enlistment status of any individual veteran, white or black.
Thomas Tobe’s name has been cited before as a “black Confederate” in several places, including in the comments section over at Kevin’s place. In every case I can find, the claim directs back to these same pension documents without reference to any other evidence or, for that matter, providing any other information about Tobe at all. Tobe applied for a pension in 1919, under that year’s South Carolina Confederate Pension Act of 1919. Earlier South Carolina pensions had been issued primarily to men disabled by the war, or widows of men who died in Confederate service. The 1919 program included all veterans and widows over the age of sixty who had married veterans before 1890. But it did not include African Americans who had served as cooks, servants or in other non-combatant support roles; those men did not become eligible for pensions until 1923. Note that when one runs the search of South Carolina pensions as Ms. DeWitt suggests, the applications are listed in chronological order; Tobe’s name and 1919 application appear at the head of the list, with the next-earliest that of Wash Stenhouse, dated 1923.
There are other documented cases where African American men used different forms at different times to describe their wartime roles. The famous Holt Collier, for example, applied for a servant’s pension in Mississippi in 1906, and again in 1916, before applying as a soldier in 1924 and 1928. It may be significant that neither of the clauses attesting to witnessing Tobe’s service (<a href="http://kindredblood.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/thomas-tobe-3.jpg"page 3) are left blank as to his rank and unit, and the witnesses attesting to his service do not appear to have served in the 7th South Carolina Cavalry with Tobe. That, combined with the wide discretion given to local political appointees in determining who would qualify for a pension, it should be considered at least a possibility that the board in his case did not exercise particular rigor in his case to verify the claim made in the old man’s application. So it’s possible that Tobe, perhaps with the encouragement of someone with influence on the local pension board, encouraged him to apply for a pension for which he was not technically eligible.
I have been unable to find any contemporary (i.e., generated in 1861-65) military records for Tobe in the usual places, including the NPS Soldiers & Sailors Database or in the service record files via Footnote. I know that it’s a common defense for the absence of records of this type that Confederate records are fragmentary, were lost or destroyed, etc., but given that Tobe is reported to have served the entire span of the war, it seems unlikely that there would be nothing at all. (I recognize that Confederate records are incomplete, but also that that’s used sometimes reflexively to explain the absence of documentary evidence that should be there. I’ve hunted up dozens of Confederate service records, and the only times I’ve come up completely empty are those cases where the man’s status as a solider is itself in doubt.)
Ancestry.con says Tobe shows up in the index of veteran’s graces in the National Cemetery Association, buried at Mount Zion AME Church in Little Mountain, South Carolina, about 12 miles from Hellers Creek. That database, however, is compiled from numerous sources, including private sources. They note that “information on veterans buried in private cemeteries was collected for the purpose of furnishing government grave markers,” so I think it likely that Tobe’s inclusion in that database is not based on any contemporary military record, but on a request based on the self-same pension records that everyone else cites. Those pension records seem to be the only documents available that link Tobe to the Confederate Army in any way, shape or form.
I should add that the basic primer to understanding the process for awarding Confederate pensions — and their limitations — remains James G. Hollandsworth, Jr.’s manuscript, “Looking for Bob: Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War,” in the Journal of Mississippi History
So was Thomas Tobe an honest-to-goodness Confederate soldier? I don’t know, but with the case for it based on a single, highly problematic document, I think the best one can say is, maybe.
Now, as Kevin often points out, alleged “black Confederates’” lives rarely get any attention at all apart from their supposed status as Confederate soldiers; those who cite them typically don’t dig much further beyond the one document that, to them, makes their chosen point. So while I retain some skepticism about whether Thomas Tobe was recognized as a trooper in the 7th South Carolina Cavalry during the war, I would like to share what else I have found out about him.
I was able to trace Thomas Tobe through most of the U.S. Censuses from 1850 to 1920. I could not find him in the 1860 Census, and the 1890 Census was destroyed in a fire, but he shows up in the others. The pension record gives his birth date as 1835, but various censuses indicate a birth date as late as 1839. It appears that, apart from the war years, he spent his entire life in central South Carolina, in Newberry and Lexington Counties, just west of Columbia.
In 1850 Tobe is lasted as being age 11, the son of William and Mary Tobe of Hellers (now Hellers Creek?), Newberry County, ages 50 and 35 respectively. William Tobe is listed as a farmer. Thomas has three siblings — Mary (15), Young W. (5) and Lucy (3). Thomas Tobe is described here as “Mulatto,” while in all following censuses he’s described as “Black.”
In 1870 Thomas Tobe is listed as a farm laborer in Newberry County, his age given as 31 He is married to Elizabeth, age 25, and they have four children residing with them — Delia (12), Thomas Jr. (9), William (7), John ( 4), and Samuel (1). Also living with them is a black farm laborer, George Wadsworth, age 23.
In 1880, Thomas is still in Hellers, now giving his age as 44. Elizabeth — giving her name as Betty — gave her age again as 25. Living with them are their children Thomas (17), William(15), John(14), Samuel (13), Garibaldi (12), Julius (10), Ebenezer (9), Hayes (8), and Florence (6). In that year’s agricultural census, Tobe is a renter on a 64-acre farm.
In 1900, Tobe is still in Hellers, giving his age as 60. He provides his birth date as July 1839. Elizabeth, given as Bettie, gives her age as 55, with a birth date of January 1845. They indicate they’ve been married 35 years. Living with them are two grandsons, their names listed as Lon (12) and Kite (10). He is still renting a farmstead.
In 1910, Thomas and Elizabeth Tobe are still in Hellers, giving their ages as 75 and 68, respectively. Living with them is a grandson, Thomas, age 21. The elder Tobe now owns his farmstead, with a mortgage. Elizabeth reports that she is the mother of 17 children, 10 of whom are still living.
In 1920, Thomas and Elizabeth Tobe are living in Broad River, Lexington County, with their ages given as 84 and 73 respectively. Although the two of them comprise a single household, the next household in the census is their son John, age 52, and his family, so it appears the elder Tobes either lived next door, or perhaps in an apartment adjacent to John.
Taken together, these decennial snapshots suggest a man whose life was stable but very linear. He and Elizabeth never learned to read or write, but were married for at least 55 years and raised a large family. He was, in his last years, able to purchase his own farm. It’s possible that, apart from his travels during the war, Thomas Tobe did not travel much beyond the region of central South Carolina where he grew up.
Unfortunately, though these census records help define the arc of Thomas Tobe’s life, they don’t shed any light at all on the nature of his service with the Confederate Army.
Subsequently discovered that Thomas Tobe died on August 1, 1922, and Elizabeth followed on March 29, 1923. Both are reportedly buried in the cemetery at Fairview Baptist Church, near Newberry. If correct, that would seem to be a solid 11-12 miles from the location identified in the National Cemetery Association database, further casting doubt on its validity as a source.
Also not that Tobe died before South Carolina made African American servants eligible for pensions in 1923; there seems to me a possibility that had he lived, Tobe’s application might have been changed, to that form instead, just as Holt Collier’s pension type was later changed, going the other way.
Andy,
Excellent comments. I am always impressed by your research depth and scope. Thanks for making the pension system more clear to me and my readers and for fleshing out Mr. Tobe’s life.
The Confederate pension system was, generally speaking, one that was inherently weak on verification, and capable of being manipulated for both good and ill purposes. Pension records are helpful adjuncts to a soldier’s service record but, by themselves, shouldn’t be considered definitive.
So Andy, in you opinion, was Tobe a Confederate soldier?
From what I’ve seen so far, I stand by what I said in the long comment above — the best I can say is “maybe.” To say “claimed, but not corroborated” is more accurate. As you know, the historical record frequently fails to give clear answers. Those who advocate for Tobe being a recognized as a soldier in 1861-65 will not be happy with an inconclusive answer like that, but that’s the nature of the discipline.
What we have in this case is a claim, made more than fifty years after the war, of a specific type of military service. The witnesses who attest to the claim appear not to have served in the same unit, or firsthand witnesses to Tobe’s service. There is (as far as I can tell) nothing else that supports the claim, not even a long-standing oral tradition as in the case of other candidates. Given the substantial structural limitations of the Confederate pension system in verifying applicants’ claims, I just don’t think a single document of that sort is sufficient by itself to establish anyone’s wartime status to a reasonable certainty.
AH:
“This will be familiar ground to you, but it bears repeating, because it underscores why Confederate pension applications are not especially reliable sources for determining a man’s status in 1861-65.
Pensions for Union soldiers was handled by a central office within the federal government,”
***
Your description is accurate, but this does not make the Federal system more reliable.
Confederate pensions were handled locally by county boards, by people who oftentimes knew the applicant and/or knew the witnesses. They board itself could verify the character of the claimant and witnesses.
That’s more reliable than an application sent off to Washington where some pencil pusher decides the case but knows no one involved in it.
***
AH:
“where each claimant’s service was checked against official records compiled by the War Department.”
***
The War Department had Confederate records too.
In the Compiled Service Records of Confederate Soldiers you see several with inquiries from state pension boards for information about the soldier.
Pingback: Thomas Tobe and the Limits of Confederate Pension Records « Dead Confederates
Note:
Company G of Holcombe’s Legion was infantry.
…from Footnote.com (Miscellaneous Confederate records)-
“Thos. Tobe [unit not stated]
appears on a Hospital Muster Roll of General Hospital No. 1 at Columbia, SC, for July & August 1864.
Attached to hospital…June 30, 1864. Employed as Nurse.
…
Remarks: Conscript Negro.”
This does not rule out service in Holcombe’s Legion. He could have been with that unit prior to or sometime after June 30, 1864.
*******
There is also a “Tobbe” that appears on a receipt roll dated June 17, 1864 that lists him in Company C, 27th SC Infantry.
BR,
Thanks for the information.
I’ve updated my post on this to reflect BR’s notice about Tobe’s hospital service.
If he has a card, he was paid by the Confederate government. therefore he ‘served.” Somewhere the lines of the argument has gotten blurred from the starting point. It is my understanding that the quote started out 60,00 served in some capacity, 1300 saw the elephant. Now iota is all about carrying a gun , hiding in trenches. All soldiers simply did not fight. There were several Confederate Army bureaus that supported the soldier in the field, just as there are today. I have found references to nurses, clothing bureau, ordinance, engineering and so forth. Each and every one of these department came under the Confederate government, yes each person listed did serve. let me give you some examples of what I have found —
1. Arthur —
Slave of J. H. Guiderat.
Laborer at Fort Morgan.
Authority: Expenses Quartermaster Department, 1st qtr. 1861. Payroll at Fort Morgan for January of 1861. Signed Col. D. Leadbetter
2. Billy —
Servant of Saml. B. Howe Adj. 1st Regt.
Authority: Disbursements D. C. Green, 4qtr. 1861. Pay paper dated Dec. 16th. Signed.
( No listing in the CWS&S for a S.B. Howe as an officer, there is a Pvt. S.B. Howe listed in the Alabama State Artillery and an S. B. Howe of unknown rank in Capt. Mullany’s Company, Alabama Fire Battalion of Mobile)
3. Charles —
Servant of Dr. James T. Reese.
Authority: Ordinance, W. R. Pickett , Feb. – Dec. 1861. Pay paper of Dr. Reese dated April 23, 1861.
(James T. Reese, F&S, Surgeon 25 Alabama Inf. )
How about these men are they “soldiers?” Found in after action reports. Simply listed as “Negroes” yes I am counting them on my website.
1. 3 wounded Nov. 8, Slightly.
2. 4 wounded severly Nov. 21.
3. 2 killed Nov. 21.
4. 2 wounded slightly Nov. 21
Now because Andy Hall cannot find a record does not mean lack of service. Why not try to find Cornelius Oliver, 24th Batt. Mississippi Cav. (Moormans) l
Again, George, there’s no contemporary evidence that he served with a combat unit in the field. Historians make claims based on what they can document, rather than what cannot be disproved. The contemporary (dating from 1861-65) evidence is that Tobe was a free black man who was conscripted into service in a military hospital in Columbia. This evidence is in entirely in keeping with the findings of historians including Wesley, Wylie, McCurry and Levine.
You’ve made mention of Cornelius Oliver before. But your knowledge of Oliver’s service — he is a relative of yours, as I recall — is based on documentation within your own family. That doesn’t appear to exist in Tobe’s case. While there can be multiple sources of information in a given individual’s case, the only thing that points to his service (in any capacity) with a military unit in the field is the pension record, which is attested by men who were not actually witnesses to that alleged service. While I’m entirely open to the possibility that Tobe spent time with that unit as a servant or similar capacity, it’s a very problematic document upon which to base a claim for enlisted status.
So now the idea is that doctors and hospital attendants who served the Confederate government were not enlisted? Would that line of thinking also apply to teamsters, musicians, navy personnel, prison guards and the host of other non combat roles? What about the white conscripts??? How do you classify the Yankee conscripts??? Am I reading your post correctly?
Let me see, these historians you mention are they all non biased.? I am sure Levine is not the others I don’t know nor do I really care. Why should I believe people, up to and including you, who have a biased agenda? You see Andy I don’t need someone with a biased agenda to tell me what I can read or information I can find myself.
The real problem with Tobe’s service as well as my grandfathers is both lack the documentation, in any ROSTER. That in itself is not proof they did not serve since it is well know that that many Confederate records are incomplete. So it is your OPINION that the only service a black man could do is a servant? Do you think they were no smarter than that. Are you questioning his bravery ? Based on what? Are you calling the men who vouched for his service liars? What gives you that right?? You cannot prove in any sense of the word he did not kill a Yankee soldier, can you? You cannot prove anything beyond hwat is written in records. You are simply speculating at the very best.
Back to my Oliver, I did find documentation, not just within the family.
George wrote:
I really don’t much care whether you believe me or not. That you are (seemingly) unfamiliar with these historians, and willing to dismiss them unread as having a particular bias, speaks volumes about how utterly unserious you are about the topic.
Do you realize how shrill you sound?
As I said above, historians make claims based on what they can document, rather than what cannot be disproved. I’m happy for readers to read what I write, here and elsewhere, and what you write, and judge for themselves who’s work is backed up by actual evidence, versus speculation.
One thing that has to be remembered is that eventhough they may have been “paid’ that payment went not to the slave but to the slaves owner. It would be interesting to know more about those men you posted about.
Corey,
We honestly have no idea where the money went. At the very minimum the money went for the welfare of the slaves. Too it must be remembered that in the end at least some of these men and women got pensions for their service.
It should be noted that most of these men did service around fort Morgan/Mobile, therefore, I find it hard to believe that this is a complete list of negroes from Alabama. The after action report is from Fort Sumter, 1864. It is the only one I have found, so there could possibly be other injuries or deaths
I am afraid that unless we can find other records, these mens names are lost to history.
So if you have such imcomplete information, how can you make the conclusion that these men were black confederates?
The first 3 men I posted came from a micro film #17 held by the Alabama Dept of Archives and History. It is titled microfilm “Negroes in the Confederate Army”. I rented the film and copied the names from it. The name of the film is somewhat misleading since it only deals with Alabama. I seem to remember something like 119 men listed, allowing for duplicates, I believe I ended up with 91 men.
The second set of men clearly state “Negro” and is found in various records under the heading “Confederate.”
Sorry for any Confusion, hope I cleared it up.
BTW Thomas Tobe is found under “Civil War Soldiers – Confederate – Misc” This is not to be confused with records found under the heading “Confederate Citizens File” which is a different matter altogether. I posted this info to Andy Hall’s “Dead Confederate” blog. It would appear at this time Andy has nothing to say about the different categories.
At this time I have not used any of the names you generally find on various website, as you can see my info is new. The common names, such as Holt Collier etc., will come much later.
My goal is not to prove a given number of “soldiers” regardless of any one defination of what that might be. I intend to get as close to the 60,000 served “in some capacity” as possible. I am not sure if we can ever prove the 13,000 “saw the elephant” statement or from what distance they may have saw it .
Well, good luck with that. But I would encourage you to read the posts on Andy’s, Kevin’s and Brooks’ sites to first define what Black confederate and soldier is. There as been recent discussion on the meaning of soldier in 1861-65. And just so you know, only a handful of blacks may come even close to meeting that criteria.
Corey,
Kevin and Andy and whoever Brooks have not earned the right to define anyone, who appointed these 3 keepers of the task??? I have already shut Andy down, using nothing but facts, that is why I said go to his blog. Kevin won’t come out of hiding behind his heavily moderated site to engage in any sort of debate. His forte is making witty snide remarks. Brooks, I have really no idea about him, never heard of him, but if he would like to engage me in a civil debate about Black Confederate service, I am willing. This much I do know, anything I post, Kevin and Andy will dispute. So be it. Doesn’t make it wrong on their say so. Fact of the matter is I have done more research than the both of them combined. That being the case I stand behind my findings.
I let the states and the governments do the work for me I use the records as they are classified by whomever was given the task. by the government. If the 3 amigos disagree — tough.
And just so you know, there were more blacks enrolled in the Confederate army than anyone knows. I cannot place names but by golly I do have numbers. I cannot prove in each and every instance prove they may have saw combat, but given the fact they traveled with the army it is a darn good chance they did.
Just would like to point something out to you, maybe you haven’t realized it yet, but you are letting Andy, Kevin and this Brooks fellow steer your way of thinking and, perhaps your feelings, about Black Confederates. That and the fact you made the statenment you were striving to be the most “anti Confederate ” website on the net makes wonder if there isn’t maybe some biased involved. If not then surely, as you said, you are certainly not trying to bring them back to life. Know what I mean?
I am always available at http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
George, George, George…I will dispute much of what you say as well. For starter, Brooks is Brooks Simpson, a history professor and author of Crossroads ( http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/ ). You might want to check it out some day and I am sure if you keep things civil he will discuss you points of view with you…and you might learn something.
As for defining a Black confederate and a soldier you are right…they should not be in charge of that definition…so they leave it up to the definition of the day and by that definition…slaves and your so called black confederates were not soldiers.
I would love to see all this research you have or say you have…most historians provide details in order to let others look it over and make decision…so let see all these numbers, but you will need to provide actuall research, not some random neo-confederate, lost cause site that lists the same tried and tired claims of black confederates. I want to see some real scholarship if you have it.
My guess is that you cannot produce that which you claim. There may have been thousands of blacks with the confederate army…as slaves…not as soldiers…the historical record just does not back it up…but let’s see the fruits of your research.
And, I am not letting Kevin, Andy and Brooks dictate to me my thoughts on black confederates…I have done some of the research and have reached the same conclusion as they have and my work backs up their findings.
Corey,
Just for starters they may have been slaves but they were soldiers too. Being free wasn’t a requirement for serving in the confederate army.
Dispute all you want, means absolutely nothing to me, it is what folks like you, Levin and Hall do best.
I have the sourced research and posted some here. Prove that wrong.
Ah but yes you are you don’t have the guts to stand up fort your own people and tell the likes of Hall and Levin to go to hell you can think for yourself.
If you have done the research and these finding are what is guiding you, then your research is faulty.
Remember the argument is– 60,000 served slaves or not, they were still enrolled, 13,000 saw the elephant (Combat) Not 60,000 or 13,000 soldiers.
In the fullest sense, any man in the military service who receives pay, whether sworn in or not, is a soldier, because he is subject to military law. Under this general head, laborers, teamsters, sutlers, chaplains, &c. are soldiers. In a more limited sense, a private soldier is a man enlisted in the military service to serve in the cavalry, artillery, or infantry. He is said to be enlisted when he has been examined, his duties of obedience explained to him, and after he has taken the prescribed oath.
General August Kautz’s, USA,”Customs of Service, for Non-Commissioned Officers and Soldiers” (1864), page. 11
LOL oh wow now its the “definition of soldier at the time”…typical Yankee Apologist, change the rules of debate when someone meets your first rules and beats you at your own game. The best example of your “definition of the word IS” defense to date.
Plus, as I have pointed out before, a historical record written by the men who condemned those being discussed is hardly an objective source of information. History is always being defined based on modern views….otherwise George A. Custer would still be an Errol Flynn-type hero who “died with his boots on” and helped “win the west.”
Carl,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Things to too hot over at Civil War Memory? As to your point, the definition really did not change it evolved based on historical fact and research. I know it is hard for Lost Cause Traditonalists like yourself to follow along, but try and keep up.
Carl,
It ain’t easy keeping up with these fellows. For one thing they are the self appointed “keepers of the knowledge” when it comes to the War For Southern Independence. As you pointed out they make the rules then they change them when the facts hit the fan. Notice neither Andy Hall over on Dead Confederates or Corey has challenged the classification of these records by men who were given the task? Matter of fact Hall has no responded to me yet. Levin no hope of getting him out of his smug little I know it all world to engage in a verbal exchange.
Give me a visit sometime, right now I am making several Changes to the SHAPE website adding more info and such so I am almost always home.
George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
Again George, thanks for stopping by and commenting. If you would like to have a conversation with Carl, please contact him on Facebook or some other venue. Thanks.
Corey,
Where do you get the authority to change anything? What makes 3 or 4 Yankees think they speak for the entire historical community?? Did ya’ll get this cleared with the Sons of Union Veterans, The USCT, I am sure you didn’t ask the SCV. Did you ask any veteran group from WWII up to today young vets. No ??? Boy ya’ll must be feeling your self importance. Evolved, what a crock of crap.
Have any of you know it alls really ever served in the military??
I see you haven’t commented on my last post. Where is all this massive amount of research you are supposed to have done? I sure thought you were gonna prove my post wrong. Heck for all we know, I may have just proved everything, there may have been 13,000 black men at Charleston/ Fort Sumter when the Yankees made their second illegal invasion of that City. That would take care of that part of the discussion.
What are you gonna do when the facts really hit the fan?
George
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4
George,
Nobody is changing anything, nor am I taking liberty with any type of authority. Simply put, the definition of a soldier at the time (1861-65) would not include blacks as soldiers in the confederate army. Blacks were not enlisted in the army so they were not soldier, unless you count those that may have been enlisted in early March 1865. You need to read the following…
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/whats-a-soldier-whos-a-soldier/#comments
Again, thanks for the comments.
With your pwermissiopn i’ll use the defination Kautz.
BTW just found a reference of almost 2, 000 Negroes at Fort Sumter who saw the elephant.
Ok, I will bite…what is the “defination Kautz” ?
Would love to see that reference…
The defination is posted above.
Nope no references until I am ready.
Oh, I see, somehow I missed the reference to Gen. Kautz and it would have helped a bit if your sentence structure above was more developed.
I eagerly await you history changing references and documentation!*
*Not holding my breath
George,
Either present your information or move on! I won’t have you wasting my time or belittling my friends.
CM
Corey,
I did not receive notice of this posting, if I had i would have replied sooner. I have presented good quality information based on historical fact for you and your biased friends. If you or they cannot do any better than post their opinions not my fault.
Oh by the way I won’t let you or anyone of these so called researchers attack my heritage and get a free pass. You don’t like an opposing view, then stop the attacks.
Here is something for ya’ll to whine about. http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2
Don’t run off in a corner and talk about me behind my back with the likes of Levin, Simpson and Hall, have the backbone to post to my forum, you will get civil answer
George,
You know I just took a quick glance at your website and I notice it is almost, if not completly, a copy of Ann DeWitt and Kevin Meek’s Black Confederate website. Do they know you have cut and pasted their information?
Last time I checked your site, George, it seems you yourself do a lot of trash-talking about other bloggers (Brooks, Corey, Levin, me) over there. That’s your prerogative, of course, but it does seem a little hypocritical of you to accuse others of mentioning you “behind my back” in a comment thread here, one that you’ve actively participated in, when you actually devote entire posts to showing your supposed prowess in executing rhetorical smack-downs of us on other blogs.
The other thing I noticed at your site last time I visited was that that most of the “replies” to your postings were, in fact, your “replies” to your own postings. It doesn’t seem a discussion board so much as a monologue.
George,
I have no desire to comment on your so called website in which you are the self-appointed President. You may post here as long as you contribute something other than paranoia about some of us talking about you.
So far as the documentation shows, there were not 1000′s of black confederate serving as soldiers in the Confederate army. Those that did serve did so as slaves working as servants, cooks etc. If you can find solid information to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing that information. That said, I will not accept the random information for the numerous sites on the net that do not care to provide citations.
Corey,
I really do not care one way or the other where you post to the SHAPE forums or not. Truth being known you cannot prove anything that I have posted incorrect . If you could you would jump in a New York minute. Paranoid about talking about me– I think not. It really doesn’t worry me, I can handle myself. Self appointed??? President?? Sloooooow down and read get the facts right, then post. I am the VP. One thing I can say I do not post that I am trying to honor my kindred and attack them at every angle with opinions and twisted historical fact. Nor have I said I intend to honor my kindred and the and make the statement I want to be the most anti Confederate site on the web. Yes that really shows an unbiased opinion doesn’t it?????
This has been posted many times in many places yet you, Hall and Leven still screw it up every time you post. Not one person has said anything about thousands of Black soldiers except you Yankee folks who are so anxious to disprove any service by blacks at all. The statement and the numbers are– About 60,000 served in some capacity, about 13,00 saw the elephant. Now as far as the soldiers part goes, it appears you 3 or 4 greater than thou arts have defined what you believe is a soldier and that is the criteria we all must follow. Hello!!! You don’t get to make the rules Like it or not!!!!
BTW I have about 2,000 soldiers listed and you can’t prove different by any historical fact. Run off in a corner with your buddies and —–DISPUTE THAT!!!!!!!!
George,
You may want to take a general survey of the internet sites discussing black confederates. There are many pro-southern sites claiming upwards of 100,000 blacks served as soldiers. I have made no such claims as to numbers, but you have 60,000 and 13,000 saw the elephant. Gotta Source????
And as for the 2,000 names you have listed, you have listed slaves…not soldiers as Andy Hall at Dead Confederates has shown. And you still have not answered my question about cutting a pasting from the DeWitt/Meeks Website.
I don’t care who claims what. When I first discussed this issue with you I gave you the numbers and the source of the numbers. Look it up..
Nope all soldiers, even the ones who are listed as slaves. Prove me wrong.
Sure I answered that question. Go back and read real slow.
Corey,,
Never heard of DeWitt and Meeks. I have no need to cut and paste anyones information unless they are the source for new names. Since I am recording all names any info is fair game as long as I satisfy myself the sources are good. Everything I have posted is sourced, up to and including when nothing else was noted but “negro”.
Why don’t you do a search of the website for those two and see if you can find them? Prove me wrong — if you can.
Ah almost forgot my manners– thanks for the hits will have to see if this DeWitt and Meeks has useful info.
http://www.blackconfederatesoldiers.com/
You may not have cut and paste but it looks a bit fishy if you ask me. But that is not the point. In most, if not all, the name you list it is clear that those listed and those who “served” did so as slaves…not as soldiers.
Prove they wdid not see combat. Prove they did not serve as a soldier.
Ok Andy so you wanna try and out slick me, good deal, I’ll play that game. I said why should I read and believe someone with a biased agenda? The fact YOU are willing to reference to them gives proof to which side they lean. Unlike you I do not need anyone to form an opinion for me on any given issue. I can read and it does appear from comments on this board better than some of your buddies.
Let’s see I take the documentation band base it on it face value and use it as such without adding or subtracting anything. You take the same document and give your opinion on what you believe may be the case and then well me the men who vouched for his service may not be telling the truth. Do you know how ignorant you sound???
I stand behind my research, I made no speculation at all just simply what the records say. Now you like to throw out the ole disprove bone as if it means something, how about we prove? It does appear I can using your sources prove he did serve.
So are we not back to the idea only actual combat units make a person a soldier?
Andy,
Sure I mentioned the BS that ya’ll post. I did so in the open and you are free to address the post if you like. Unlike these heavly moderated blogs, as long as your post is civil it remains, uncut, unedited. Also I have, in the past invited you, Corey, Simpson to an exchange of facts on any subject. It was like I was trying to hide anything from ya’ll.
I could post ignorant opinions and comments like you fellows do start and get tons of replies, however I had rather stick to the old boring FACTS!!!!!!
BTW I may not get a lot of replies, but I do get the reads.