"Black troops in the ACW" Topic

@35thOVI
But no you are not a troublemaker.

@138SquadronRAF
It is not because historical facts have not been written that they did not exist!

Just because historical facts are written by contemporary, reputable academic historians currently employed in academia, doesn't mean they are reliable!

Because you will always find someone of his "caliber" to contradict him.

And just because historical facts, like academic articles, peer-reviewed articles, are written by a contemporary, reputable academic historian currently employed in academia, doesn't mean they are reliable!

Because there too, you will always find someone of his "caliber" to contradict him.

@Grattan54
Be careful 35thOVI is watching you.

138SquadronRAF, while I see what you are saying, academia isn't the sole source of reputable history. There are many A level Civil War historians out there that aren't in academia and never have been. David Powell, Harry Pfanz, etc.

But yeah, you want to stay away from anybody that lists the Abbeyville Institute in their bio, for example.

hi EEE ya, um, yes, "historical facts, like academic articles, peer-reviewed articles, … written by a contemporary, reputable academic historians" mostly are more reliable than those not trained in historiography. I'm not saying there aren't good authors out there that aren't in academia, but FOR THE MOST PART, they are far better and more reliable than those that aren't.

Why does a historian have to be employed in academia to be considered reliable?

Partly I would say because it is their job. It is their profession. It is what they do for a living. Others who write history, and some are very good, usually have other jobs and did not spend the ten years in college studying the war, learning and researching the war, going to conferences, presenting papers, writing articles and books and honing their craft. They likely have more time to travel and do research, to stay up on the latest research and study their field.

😂 Donlowry I was thinking the same.

Also why pier reviewed and contemporary Acadamia only? If piers are all also contemporaries, Taught in the same academic environments and with the same beliefs, why would they not agree the writers beliefs?

I would think you would want a variety of all timeframe writers, from both north and south as well as from actual participants of the war and than make decisions based off of the information as a whole.

If you read only pier reviewed contemporary writers who believed the US use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evil and wrong, do you see how jaded your view of what happened would be?

I always read any book on history going in believing that the author probably has his or her own biases. So their research may be written with a perspective of proving their viewpoint. For instance in many Napoleonic books you will get a pro French or English bias. For years books on Waterloo disregarded the contribution of the Prussians and allies of Britain. Also rarely have I read anything positive of the Russians in 1812.

But that is only my opinion.

Having a degree in military science which includes military history, I took a lot of history courses. Later taught at Auburn as a GTA and then taught several courses at the college and high school level.
That said, I feel that I learned more due to personal research than I ever did in graduate and under graduate courses. Great example is the the focus of the Age of Napoleon course never discussed how fragmented Europe, especially Germany was.
I learned much more trying to find out how to paint castings when I was in the Army.
In academia it is more important to publish, so the college gets royalties and prestige. The university tried to get me to sign over the royalty money from rules that I had done before I even went there.

@Cleburne1863
You see what I meant, but actually there is better, a professional historian once told me that the golden rule was "the first sources" those who saw the events, and the "second sources", those who spoke to those who saw the events.

Well I say that since we know what the testimonies of human beings are worth in general, I would not automatically trust either the "first sources" or the "second sources".

@donlowry
Because it is agreed in advance, but in the first place, it is the historians employed in the academic environment who think that?

@Grattan54
However that does not prevent some historians from writing laughable stuff especially when they are not military historians who go into the details of wars.

@35thOVI
Well done I think the same thing, I always read a history book thinking that the author probably has his own prejudices, because if you ask an article on the same subject to 10 different people, professional historian or not, you will have 10 different opinions.

It's human their research is written with the aim of proving their point of view and nothing else.

@TimePortal
Professionals do a lot of research but it will be written with the aim of proving their point of view and nothing else.

You don't automatically trust any source. You look for corroboration.

Cleburne1863

"You don't automatically trust any source. You look for corroboration."

But back to my point. I read many books and stories on Waterloo in the 70's, 80's and 90's. They all either emphasized the British and or French. Little to no mention of the contributions of the Prussians and English Allies. So corroboration was there, but it was a prejudice corroboration.

Look at the corroboration of past historians on other subjects that we see other views of today. There is no difference in todays acadamia, possibly more so, as diversity of thought and different views, especially in the social sciences, is less than in the past. Most in academia are like minded in much of their beliefs.. beliefs on racism, white privilege, politics, etc. They are more than likely to corroborate fellow colleagues views, as in the whole it represents their own views as well.

I know in college I was in some instances influenced by some professors. But fortunately I was political before college and already reading history books at 9.

Obviously all only my opinion.

<timeportal>
+1

"In academia it is more important to publish, so the college gets royalties and prestige. The university tried to get me to sign over the royalty money from rules that I had done before I even went there."

@138SquadronRAF
It is not because historical facts have not been written that they did not exist!

Just because historical facts are written by contemporary, reputable academic historians currently employed in academia, doesn't mean they are reliable!

Because you will always find someone of his "caliber" to contradict him.

And just because historical facts, like academic articles, peer-reviewed articles, are written by a contemporary, reputable academic historian currently employed in academia, doesn't mean they are reliable!

Because there too, you will always find someone of his "caliber" to contradict him.

I demand the same level of proof in history as I demand when confronted in psuedoscience or psuedoarchaeology.

If they position is not back by peer reviewed research, I will reject the hypothasis.

Without properly evidence, you might as well be quoting Graqham Hancock or Giorgio A. Tsoukalos and I will treat the claims accordingly.

As an ABD in military history from Kansas State, bluntly I don't regard a historian as being more reliable for holding an academic post these days, and this is especially true of military history. Formal academic TRAINING is useful, but that's different. Very few academic positions in military history these days, and some of the holders aren't really concerned with military events.

I expect material to be properly footnoted with a good bibliography--hence the training--but Stephen Sears was employed by American Heritage, and I've seen good monographs by part rangers.

Stephen Ambrose poses as an academic historian. Yet his career is riddled with accusations of both plagiarism and inaccuracies.
link
See the subtopic: Criticism.
Speirs refused to have anything to do with him, as well as a few others of the Band of Brothers.

David Hackett Fischer is also a best selling academic historian, affiliated with Brandeis. Yet he is not above a few fabrications.

Many "popular academic historians" seem to embrace Hollywood's attitude towards historical accuracy to make the story come out better.

@Cleburne1863
You understood me, in history as in many other areas, nothing is worth corroborating, proving, confirming.

@35thOVI
I started reading history books as soon as I could read and I have read almost only history books since then and especially military history and I remember how my history teachers suffered with me given the school curriculum and my personal reading. LOL.

@138SquadronRAF
Many things and facts cannot be proven, which does not mean that they do not exist or that they did not take place, nevertheless in history as in many other areas, nothing is worth corroborating, proving, confirming.

@robert piepenbrink
And the contemporaries present on the battlefields of the ACW, they could not write or dictate their memoirs?

And they were not academics…

@All
By the way, what types of units were the southern black troops organized into.

Were they uniform?

What weapons?

There are no books on the southern black troops?

Did you not read this thread? There were no formal or organized southern black soldiers. A few one-offs or individuals, but nothing on the unit level. They were camp slaves, teamsters, and attendants. They had no uniforms and no weapons. The few scattered individual that did fight wore whatever uniform their unit wore, and used whatever weapons that unit had.

Lilian said:

"the number of French under german uniform, excluding forced conscripts from annexed Alsace never reached a significative number, only a regiment for 40 millions of inhabitants then a brigade-size-so-called-Division, waou all that for that."

A "brigade sized force" is still a "brigade sized force", which is a decent sized number. Plus you have to remember your collaborators and your buddies in Vichy land…but hey…don't let me stop you from blowing a gasket…

"Did you not read this thread?"
+1 🙄

@Cleburne1863
I wouldn't have believed that they could have uniforms.

@Murphy
The "Charlemagne" that is to say the 33rd division of the Waffen SS had 7000 very motivated French for various reasons, it's very few given the enormous numbers engaged by the belligerents of WWII…

But the last defenders of Hitler's bunker were still French.

Morally it is not comparable with black slaves fighting for the confederation, it's not like Jews had fought for the Nazis.

"Morally it is not comparable with black slaves fighting for the confederation, it's not like Jews had fought for the Nazis."

Yes, yes it is morally comparable. French collaborators fighting in the SS for the Germans is morally comparable and reprehensible.

"Morally it is not comparable with black slaves fighting for the confederation, it's not like Jews had fought for the Nazis."

Ahh but in the US and elsewhere, we have Jews who are in the streets supporting Hamas. 😔

I have always been under the impression that slaves provided significant logistical support to Lee's army, including cooking and camp duties. But also in the building of fortifications. The Potomac army was initially amazed at how quickly Lee could fortify his positions during the post-Wilderness campaign. I have read that anywhere from 6 to 10,000 slaves supported logistical operations.

Was Bruce Catton a good historian? He was no academic. Don't think Shelby Foote was either. Of course, both had points of view (Northern and Southern respectively), but who doesn't?

"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it." – Ralph Waldo Emerson

The French had an active fascist movement. Many admired Hitler and wanted France to join the new German order. Which in part explains the performance of the French military in 1940 and the existence of Vichy. I don't see any connection to the ACW.

Bruce Catton was a superb writer and Historian. If anyone doubts it go read his AOP Trilogy. The third book "A Stillness at Appomattox" won the Pulitzer Prize. Who knows how many became Civil War buffs or how many careers were jumped-started (including mine) by his writings?

His description of the Iron Brigade arriving on the field on the first day of Gettysburg is simply breathtaking.

Shelby Foote was a novelist but he also had a way with words. Catton is still the gold standard for making the days of the AOP come alive.

Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote are SUPERB!!!

@Cleburne1863
Yes the French collaborators fighting in the SS for the Germans is morally reprehensible, but it's a bit different because in France the Second World War is also a civil war and the French who fought for the Nazis or for De Gaulle were for the most part highly motivated political soldiers.

I don't believe that the blacks who fought the Yankees were.

@35thOVI
Jews who are in the streets supporting Hamas? Not in my country!

There have always been anti-Zionist Jews.

@Tortorella
Since there were slaves in the south it makes sense that such a thing would happen.

@donlowry
"Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it.".

And who are the geniuses during the ACW?

@Old Contemptible
The performance of the French army in 1940 is due to the bloodletting of 14-18 and the mentality of the French after that and because of that in the 20s and 30s.

Fortunately Hitler was Francophobic to the point of dying otherwise incredible things would have happened, because Pétain was still idolized in 1944!

Imagine a Hitler who would have been a super Francophile.

@mahdi1ray
I don't know, it's Scott Bowden who I like to read.

@hi EEE ya

"Jews who are in the streets supporting Hamas? Not in my country!

There have always been anti-Zionist Jews"

The current protests in the streets are supposedly in response to Israel's retaliatory attack for the massacre on 10/7 by Hamas in Israel.

No matter what those protestors proclaim their reasons for protesting, they are giving aid and comfort to Hamas. Many at the protests openly express their support for Hamas. "From the River to the sea" is calling for the destruction of Israel. Antisemitism is rampant with many of those in the protests. So Jews taking part in those protests, are the worst of those giving aid and comfort to Hamas. IMO

Radical Islam is the enemy of all in the west. Our ultimate destruction is their aim.

Let's also not forget that there were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis in World War II. The number might be small, but they existed.

But this discussion is better for the Hamas thread on TMP. I'm only responding to your question.

There are Jews who wish the fighting to be over. There are Jews who are critical of their government. But there are no Jews that are supporting Hamas.

"There are Jews who wish the fighting to be over. There are Jews who are critical of their government. But there are no Jews that are supporting Hamas."

I disagree and this Jewish individual expresses better than I could.
From: Jewish News Syndicate (JNS)

Subject: Pro-Hamas Jews are Jews for antisemitism – JNS.org


link

Whatever reasons that Jews taking part in the protests use as cover, groups
like "Jews for Palestine", other Jewish groups out in the protests or a Jewish student wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh, are useful dupes for the cause of Hamas and the Iranian government. Just as US citizens out there are, (Hamas massacred many US citizens as well as taking them hostage), useful dupes as well.

Although this individual is not Jewish(I assume), I take what this US protester says as not far from the truth.

"Not just me. Every Palestinian supports Hamas,"

Subject: Hamas supporter at DNC rally claims 'every Palestinian' backs terrorist group

link

Interesting
4 blacks in uniform

General Randall Slaughter's staff in Galveston, Texas, 1864. The officers and the enlisted servants wear the Confederate chasseur cap. Given the image's provenance, the uniforms and caps are probably from the Houston Depot. Image courtesy of the Lawrence T. Jones, III, Confederate Calendar Works, Austin, Texas, 2003, William A. Turner collection.

Subject: The Quintessential Confederate Cap, Part IV: Trans-Mississippi Caps, Cap Covers, General Usage and Legacy


link

Who knows how many became Civil War buffs or how many careers were jumped-started (including mine) by his writings?

I was already interested in the ACW, but Catton certainly reinforced that. I was never able to make a career out of my interest, but I have been paid for writing about it, so I guess that makes me a professional historian, even though not an academic. (But evidently not reliable, therefor.)

@35thOVI
I'm not interested in contemporary history, which is why I normally wouldn't go to Hamas thread on TMP.

Thanks for the links.

@Grattan54
Are you sure that no Jews support Hamas?

Read 35th OVI!

These Jews are the idiots utiles of Hamas!

@donlowry
You are a professional if you can make a living from what you do, otherwise you are an amateur, which is not pejorative.

Hi EEE ya on that we agree. 😉

35thOVI,

I stand corrected. You are right. I guess I could not believe that a Jew could be so low as to sell out their own people after all the genocide and hate that Jews have suffered over time.

Grattan54 no issues.

It's hard to believe I know.

But there were Jews who collaborated with the Nazis as well. Sad, but true. Every country and people have them. The Jews are not unique.

I wish I could remember the quote. Something like: If left alone, the Jewish people will fight each other.

I can't remember it, but it is pretty much true. If an outside power did not threaten them, they would divide and start bickering and fighting each other. Even against the Romans, they were divided. The "Life of Brian" with the " Judean People's Front and The People's Front of Judea", unfortunately had it right.

^ I thought the Topic is:"Black Troops in The ACW".

Mahdi, we had compared blacks fighting for the south to Jews supporting Hamas.

^ This thread has gone beyond that!!! THAT is why I made my last (sarcastic) post.

Topic? We don't need no stinkin' topic!

Madhi I realized you were being sarcastic. I was just pointing out what led to the conversation on Jews and Hamas in the first place. Just like there has been a conversation about Civil War authors, which is also off subject. Also believe there was one on French and Nazis.

All I can say is you can steer it back on topic if you have something to contribute on blacks in the confederate army or skip this topic if it upsets you.

Just like I skip the one on religious groups.

^ I am not now nor was I upset before by any TMP posts!!!
By The Way, I am neither a MUSLIM nor a Jew.

"By The Way, I am neither a MUSLIM nor a Jew."

Neither am I. Did someone accuse of being either one?

The !!! Is what Makes it seem you are upset.

But again, by all means steer this back on to the topic of blacks in the confederate army. You might notice I did post a nice link a few posts up, showing 4 in Confederate uniforms. .

"General Randall Slaughter's staff in Galveston, Texas, 1864. The officers and the enlisted servants wear the Confederate chasseur cap. Given the image's provenance, the uniforms and caps are probably from the Houston Depot. Image courtesy of the Lawrence T. Jones, III, Confederate Calendar Works, Austin, Texas, 2003, William A. Turner collection."

^ Your posts are both interesting and informative.

No one has accused me of anything in TMP.

Since I use "mahdi1ray" as my TMP NAME, I thought I should clarify my ethnic and religious background.

Ho hum. No interest in doing this again, but yes, there were some black Confederates. LOTS serving in unarmed roles, and at least a few who fought,

Google Levi Miller, or see an old TMP thread about him and my great great uncle JJ McBride of the 5th Texas.

TMP link

"Since I use "mahdi1ray" as my TMP NAME, I thought I should clarify my ethnic and religious background."

Ahh I understand. It's the "Mahdi" part right? Nope I did not think anything about it. 🙂

Now If it said JihadiBenL, I might be a wee bit concerned. 😉

Doc did you like the "General Randall Slaughter's staff" photo? I had never seen that one myself. It looks like 4 distinct uniforms on each individual.

yes indeed

@35thOVI
Yes, we agree, for me it is because after the invention of smokeless powder, the combat techniques became too ugly and after December 1914 the uniforms became in general too ugly.

To get back to the Jews, they are like the others, it is their political leaders who will determine the fate of the Israelis and the Palestinians according to their ideologies.

What about the French who supported the Nazis, it's different because they were ultra politicized unlike the black slaves who supported their "masters".

Note that the subject is not the Blacks in the Confederate army.

You and the others have completely ignored those who fought for the north!?

@Grattan54
You couldn't believe that a Jew could be so low as to sell his own people after all the genocide and hatred that the Jews have suffered over time?

But why not?

Jews are also human with all that that implies.

@mahdi1ray
You thought the topic was: "Black troops in the ACW".

Me too but the slip-up was just for some comparisons …

We don't care that you are neither MUSLIM nor Jewish, no one is perfect – LOL – and no one accused you of anything in the TMP.

I use "hi EEE ya" as a nickname on TMP and yet I am not an American from the South who would be nostalgic for the ACW because I could not be nostalgic for a period that I could not know since I was not born.

Normally nicknames are for like me, for fun, for others for "showing off", for some by lack of imagination, for others it's more serious maybe…LOL

@doc mcb
Pour remuer le couteau dans la plaie, I wonder if there were no blacks who had black slaves like them?

Thanks for the link.

I think most blacks who owned blacks were family members, but there were some black planters.

Remember too that "black" might be mostly white. In Louisiana, if I remember correctly, a quadroon was black but an octoroon was white. We find that repulsive, at least I do, but they had to have a legal definition and that was it.