black confederates

[Hugh Lawson]

Hello awcusans. I'm not interested in the question of black
confederates. What I am interested in is the question, why would
anybody devote attetion to discrediting those who claim there were black
confederates?

My assumption: There probably were a few persons of black ancestry who
got themselves into the acw on the CSA side.But I don't draw conclusions
from this.

So, what do you thinK?

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:13:22 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I agree with you. My understanding is the CSA would not arm blacks
-- so their use as combat support would have been nil.

And as you say -- I have no doubt some slaves did volunteer to help
the war effort. (You can always find somebody who will do almost
anything)

My only question is -- why does anybody care ?

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> My understanding is the CSA would not arm blacks
> -- so their use as combat support would have been nil.
>
> And as you say -- I have no doubt some slaves did volunteer to help
> the war effort. (You can always find somebody who will do almost
> anything)
>
> My only question is -- why does anybody care ?

I assume you mean, why would anybody care enough about the matter to
argue about it? And I take it that your assumption is like mine: the
number would have been too small to draw much of a conclusion.

From literary scholar E. D. Hirsch I picked up this point. People who
study things have two different motives, the scholarly motive and the
existential motive.

Scholarly motive: the search for truth, curiosity about differing
viewpoints that already exist, and so on. This is the kind of motive
that people usually give.

Existential motive: something about the scholar, from outside the
scholarly world, that motivates him to take up this topic. We all have
existential reasons for taking up a subject: to glorify and ancestor, to
give a more favorable view of somebody we like, for a statesman or a
commander to defend his reputation.

I suspect the answer to your question lies in the domain of existential
motives, especially in relation to feelings about 'the South'.

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:12:23 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>> My understanding is the CSA would not arm blacks
>> -- so their use as combat support would have been nil.
>>
>> And as you say -- I have no doubt some slaves did volunteer to help
>> the war effort. (You can always find somebody who will do almost
>> anything)
>>
>> My only question is -- why does anybody care ?
>
>I assume you mean, why would anybody care enough about the matter to
>argue about it? And I take it that your assumption is like mine: the
>number would have been too small to draw much of a conclusion.

That's exactly what I meant -- and that is my conclusion. I
honestly have no idea about it beyond that. I doubt many black
folks would enjoy finding their ancestor served in the CSA to help
preserve slavery. That would not be very good.

>From literary scholar E. D. Hirsch I picked up this point. People who
>study things have two different motives, the scholarly motive and the
>existential motive.
>
>Scholarly motive: the search for truth, curiosity about differing
>viewpoints that already exist, and so on. This is the kind of motive
>that people usually give.
>
>Existential motive: something about the scholar, from outside the
>scholarly world, that motivates him to take up this topic. We all have
>existential reasons for taking up a subject: to glorify and ancestor, to
>give a more favorable view of somebody we like, for a statesman or a
>commander to defend his reputation.
>
>I suspect the answer to your question lies in the domain of existential
>motives, especially in relation to feelings about 'the South'.
>
>hl

Its an odd coincidence that you posted this yesterday. Before
yesterday I had never given this subject of black CSA soldiers any
thought. But I am reading a book called "New Mind of the South" (by
Tracy Thompson). And she mentions that the subject is a
controversy and gives the below url as her source.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/1021/Textbook-controversy-over-claim-that-blacks-fought-for-the-Confederacy

Beyond that I still don't know anything. I suppose the Lost Cause
enthusiasts would like to think the slaves loved old Master enough to
fight and die for him. Those same folks think that the only reason
Old Master indulged in slavery was because he loved his servants so
much. He couldn't stand the thoughts of losing their love :-) Me ?
I have my doubts.

BTW, that author, Tracy Thompson, is a fellow Georgian. Raised
in Red Oak GA.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> Its an odd coincidence that you posted this yesterday. Before
> yesterday I had never given this subject of black CSA soldiers any
> thought. But I am reading a book called "New Mind of the South" (by
> Tracy Thompson). And she mentions that the subject is a
> controversy and gives the below url as her source.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/1021/Textbook-controversy-over-claim-that-blacks-fought-for-the-Confederacy

Some time ago I did a little google-checking. The author of the
textbook in question lives in New York state, and the publisher was IIRC
a New England firm. The author has written textbooks for grade school
classes on several subjects.

The person mentioned who called attention to the book's problems with
black confederates is a Wm & Mary (Virginia) professor. All this is
IIRC.

hl







--
Hugh Lawson

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:



> BTW, that author, Tracy Thompson, is a fellow Georgian. Raised
> in Red Oak GA.

I've seen notices and reviews of her book. The "new mind of the south"
is a reference W.J. Cash's The Mind of the South.

Is T. Thompson trying to explain the South to non-southeners? Can you
tell anything about the audience she'd like to reach?

Does she describe her own relationship to "being southern". Is she "no
longer a southerner"? Is she cagey or evasive about her own relation to
"being southern"?



hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:15:33 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
>> BTW, that author, Tracy Thompson, is a fellow Georgian. Raised
>> in Red Oak GA.
>
>I've seen notices and reviews of her book. The "new mind of the south"
>is a reference W.J. Cash's The Mind of the South.
>
>Is T. Thompson trying to explain the South to non-southeners? Can you
>tell anything about the audience she'd like to reach?
>
>Does she describe her own relationship to "being southern".

The way I read it, she might prefer not to be a Southerner. She
seems real happy that a lot of ethnics are taking over.

>Is she "no
>longer a southerner"? Is she cagey or evasive about her own relation to
>"being southern"?

After reading the book, I could not decide what she is. She said
a few things I liked and identified with. She said a lot that left
me wondering. She did point out that the South (culture) has changed
more often than any other part of the country.

She was born in 1955, so she is not a lot younger than we are. She
should be able to remember a little of the Georgia we knew.

She has a pretty good webpage:

http://www.tracythompson.com/

And she does a blog.

http://theblockheadchronicles.blogspot.com/

She has some advanced degrees, so I don't feel I should insult her by
offering a comment. Why don't you log in and give her a piece of our
minds :-)

BTW, I'm trying to put together a post where I would ask other folks
what it is they love about the South. So I'm trying to decide how
I would answer that question. I'm having a hard time.

[Hugh Lawson]

Here is my answer.

I don't think of the South as something to love or hate or being
proud of ashamed of. It's a big place, and a big community
that I'm part of in some way. But my political character is not
invested in the South; it's invested in the United States and a
particular state.

I don't see the South as a defendant in a trial; so broad judgments
about "the South" are IMO expressions of sentiments of the one making
the judgment.

I don't take seriously people who say things like this: "I'm not
convinced that the South is over racism yet." When someone says, "Down
there they are still fighting the Civil War," I consider that statement
just another way of still fighting the Civil War.

When somebody says, "I just had to get out of the South," I ask this
question, "Why is he saying this?" I wonder if he has new friends, and
wants to please them.

etc. ;-)

--
Hugh Lawson

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:

[ snip ]

> She has some advanced degrees, so I don't feel I should insult her by
> offering a comment. Why don't you log in and give her a piece of our
> minds :-)

Can you think of anything she's written that ought to be taken seriously?

--
Hugh Lawson

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:48:08 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> BTW, I'm trying to put together a post where I would ask other folks
>> what it is they love about the South. So I'm trying to decide how
>> I would answer that question. I'm having a hard time.
>
>Here is my answer.
>
>I don't think of the South as something to love or hate or being
>proud of ashamed of. It's a big place, and a big community
>that I'm part of in some way.

Exactly. But I'm trying to decide what it is about my state and
region that I love. Surely it's not the people (as a group). And
probably not even the culture (which once existed). I think it's the
fauna and flora. The mountains and the coast. The most
identifiable cultural characteristic of Georgia of my youth is gone.
That was the agricultural community that made up most of the non-urban
state. "gone with the wind".

>But my political character is not
>invested in the South; it's invested in the United States and a
>particular state.

I agree. I think even from the beginning (1700s) the state has been
more important to Americans than their region was. I think it was a
mistake for us in the South to lose track of that fact. Admitting
to one region made it easier for us to be classified as a whole. How
many Bostonians think of themselves as "Northerners" ?

The culture can be a lot different in short distances. Back in the
1960s, I'm sure the culture you saw on a college campus was quite
different than I saw in the wholesale hardware business in Atlanta.
And neither was like what my cousin saw trying to farm a few acres in
Lee county GA.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:48:08 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:


> Admitting
> to one region made it easier for us to be classified as a whole. How
> many Bostonians think of themselves as "Northerners" ?

Here's what I've come to believe:

Northerners ( i.e. Americans who are not southerners ) define themselves
by marking off "the South" as alien. The northerners think of
themselves as Americans. They accept the existence of regions in the
United States, for example the middle states, New England, the Midwest,
and so on, but consider these regions as normal.

In their understanding the South is a deviant region, so deviant that it
violates the shared American-ness of the normal regions. Perhaps they
learn this very early in school, and by the way they interpret media
news and documentaries.

American history records the growth of normal America, with the South
being a sort of internal enemy.

I owe much of this to David Jansson and Jennifer Rae Greeson.



--
Hugh Lawson

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:53:29 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not off hand. But she did say one thing I found very amusing. I
didn't save the whole quote, but I do remember it. On page ten,
she explains why white Southerners are able to eat sweet potatoes
these days. According to her it is because --

(quote) .... slaves imported them (sweet potatoes) from Africa ....
(unquote)

"Imported" them, by golly !

How about that ! Grandpa thought they were out in the fields
picking cotton, when in fact they were in the outhouse with the
catalogs -- ordering all sort of stuff from overseas. I wish
Thompson had expanded on that premise. She would probably have
concluded the slaves imported their tuxedos from London and their wine
from Paris.

Actually she spent most of the book either explaining what all whites
owe the blacks -- or apologizing to them for the way our ancestors
treated them. She should have named the book : "The Black Mind of
the South". Oh, well. I didn't expect much. So I wasn't
disappointed.

I am now re-reading Owsley's "Plain Folk".

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:36:19 -0400, Wiregrass Willie
<wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:53:29 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>[ snip ]
>>
>>> She has some advanced degrees, so I don't feel I should insult her by
>>> offering a comment. Why don't you log in and give her a piece of our
>>> minds :-)
>>
>>Can you think of anything she's written that ought to be taken seriously?
>
>Not off hand. But she did say one thing I found very amusing. I
>didn't save the whole quote, but I do remember it. On page ten,
>she explains why white Southerners are able to eat sweet potatoes
>these days. According to her it is because --
>
>(quote) .... slaves imported them (sweet potatoes) from Africa ....
>(unquote)

Let me add this, Hugh. It's amazing what is online these days.
Here is the exact quote on page 10 :

"Southerners eat sweet potato pie today because the sweet potato was
imported into the South from Africa by the slaves."

http://tinyurl.com/cd64deh

http://books.google.com/books?id=_hJRjHhATsQC&pg=PA10&dq=%22new+mind+of+the+south%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G3t9Ua2SHKbQ2wWPqIHoCQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:

[ snip ]

> Let me add this, Hugh. It's amazing what is online these days.
> Here is the exact quote on page 10 :
>
> "Southerners eat sweet potato pie today because the sweet potato was
> imported into the South from Africa by the slaves."

AFAIK the sweet potato is a new world crop, borrowed from the Indians.
But I haven't made a close study of the issue. I have always heard that
okra and black-eyed peas are of African origin.


--
Hugh Lawson

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:

[ snip ]

> How about that ! Grandpa thought they were out in the fields
> picking cotton, when in fact they were in the outhouse with the
> catalogs -- ordering all sort of stuff from overseas.

The early slaves who came from Africa came with knowledge and skills.
So it is not improbable that some of this knowledge and skill was used
in the New World. I'm not an expert on this, but it appears that much
of the skill and knowledge needed for rice production was provided by
the slaves themselves.

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:55:27 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm no expert either. But my recent interest in neolithic England
causes me to think the slaves who were imported to America -- were in
the stone-age and hunter-gatherer stage of cultural development.
Just like our British ancestors were five or six thousand years ago.
I'm sure the Africans had some skills -- but I doubt that advanced
agricultural knowledge was among them.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:55:27 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

[ snip ]

> I'm no expert either. But my recent interest in neolithic England
> causes me to think the slaves who were imported to America -- were in
> the stone-age and hunter-gatherer stage of cultural development.
> Just like our British ancestors were five or six thousand years ago.
> I'm sure the Africans had some skills -- but I doubt that advanced
> agricultural knowledge was among them.

There is plenty of well-grounded knowledge on these topics; it's not
necessary to speculate. I

What I suggest is reading African history, and the history of the slave
trade. There are many books on these topics.

Here is a respected academic author on American slavery:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Slavery-1619-1877-Peter-Kolchin/dp/0809016303

John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom, which is the history of
blacks in the United Statesm is always a good place to start. Here is
an Amazon page that lets you look at the inside of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0375406719/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

Because this book is widely used in college courses, you can get a copy
of a superseded edition for very little, practically nothing.

I believe Hugh Thomas's history of the slave trade is well-respected:

http://www.amazon.com/SLAVE-TRADE-STORY-ATLANTIC-1440/dp/0684835657/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367323953&sr=1-1&keywords=the+slave+trade+hugh+thomas

Another way to start is to begin with a college one-volume US history
textbook, read the relevant chapters, and then check the chapter
bibliographies.

hl





hl

[slotrot]

It comes with the numbers attributed to black confederates. Those who defend the CSA and it's states rights argument agument the number of black soldiers to add to their argument the war wasn't about slavery. See, look at the large number of black soldiers. Some have counted hundreds of black soldiers marching to/from battles.

Check the surrrender figures at Appomatox(sp?) and see how many "black confederate soldiers" surrendered at that time. Too few to mention.

It's a matter of correcting false history, Hugh. At least that's what I think, but does anyone really care what I think? Don't believe so.

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:35:17 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>There is plenty of well-grounded knowledge on these topics; it's not
>necessary to speculate. I
>
>What I suggest is reading African history, and the history of the slave
>trade. There are many books on these topics.

When I was age 10, living in an English village -- I was given a book
by an elderly lady. It had been given to her mother in Sunday school
-- in 1892. The title -- "Dr. Livingstone. The African Traveler".
(of "Dr Livingstone, I presume" fame) Over 600 pages gave me an early
insight into the African culture from which our black people are
descended.

In the past few months, I've read several books about black people.
One was "Warmth of Other Suns" and another "Black Like Me". Both are
very good. As for the slaves -- I've read several e-books written
100 years ago by slaves who escaped. Frederick Douglas is one.

The slave trade is most interesting. Go to www.archive.org

In "search" type in "african slave trade". I got 94 hits. They
should all be free.

Having said all that, I'm a little leery of -- and get bored --
reading a book that continually refers to "African Americans" instead
of "blacks".

[Hugh Lawson]

slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:


> It comes with the numbers attributed to black confederates. Those who
> defend the CSA and it's states rights argument agument the number of
> black soldiers to add to their argument the war wasn't about slavery.
> See, look at the large number of black soldiers. Some have counted
> hundreds of black soldiers marching to/from battles.
>
> Check the surrrender figures at Appomatox(sp?) and see how many "black
> confederate soldiers" surrendered at that time. Too few to mention.
>
> It's a matter of correcting false history, Hugh. At least that's what
> I think, but does anyone really care what I think? Don't believe so.

I care what you think, slotrot. And I agree that the critical side is
motivated by a desire to correct false history. But I'm also
interested in the existential motive: why discredit this particular
false history? There is so much false history.

I'm also interested in the question what motivates the other side, but I
think I already understand this: a desire to rake something from the
ashes of the rebel defeat, combined with sectional resentment that
affects part of the southern white population.

Some great philosopher said something to this effect: you can't reason
people out of an opinion that they weren't reasoned into in the first
place. This definitely applies to those who try to propagate the
many-black-confederates idea.

hl

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:


> Having said all that, I'm a little leery of -- and get bored --
> reading a book that continually refers to "African Americans" instead
> of "blacks".

You can get over this very easily.

hl

[Wiregrass Willie]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:14:35 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

A while back I read "Lines in the sand: race and class in low country
Georgia, 1750-1860" Timothy James Lockley

What could have been a very good book about the early days of slavery
in Georgia was so monotonous, I finally put it down. Some pages
the author would use that term four times. Seven syllables instead
of one. It's not only tiresome -- but it indicates a certain
pretentiousness and phoniness on the part of the author. He called
the white folks "white". Not -- "Scotch-Irish Americans".

Oh, well. We all have our little likes and dislikes. I also
recently read : "Member of the Club: Reflections on Life in a Racially
Polarized World".

It was fairly good -- but about professionals. I'd really like to
read a good book about middle, working class blacks. And how they
look at life today -- and in the recent past.

[Hugh Lawson]

Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:

> A while back I read "Lines in the sand: race and class in low country
> Georgia, 1750-1860" Timothy James Lockley
>
> What could have been a very good book about the early days of slavery
> in Georgia was so monotonous, I finally put it down. Some pages
> the author would use that term four times. Seven syllables instead
> of one.

I know this is hard to believe, but professors who write books are doing
the best they can. A few of them are good writers who can carry you
along by the force of their prose. But most are trying to report what
they learned in their research. To appreciate them requires a tolerance
for their literary failings, and a willingness to read for knowledge.

There is something annoying about a book that seems harder and
more boring that it ought to be, something that seems almost insulting
to the reader. The key I think is to read well-recommended books whose
contents you want to know, even if the writing is pedestrian.

When the going gets tough, due to boring writing or whatnot, I make it
more interesting by taking notes, writing my reactions, etc.

hl

[slotrot]

Sounds a lot like peoples' political opinions, doesn't it.

[Hugh Lawson]

slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

[ snip ]

> "you can't reason
>>
>> people out of an opinion that they weren't reasoned into in the first
>>
>> place."
>
> Sounds a lot like peoples' political opinions, doesn't it.

You got that right. Ron Paul the libertarian politician, grew up the
son of a businessman who hated FDR and the New Deal. This is a common
pattern among conservatives/libertarians.

I otoh am the child of parents who thought FDR was great.

Parental influence is an example of what I mean by existential
motives, as distinct from reasoned-out motives.

People also have existential motives for their opinions on historical
questions.

hl