Jim,

"What does it mean to both sides that their position is accepted or proven valid? If there were a few thousand or more African-American combatants on the Confederate side what does that prove and why is it important?"

The people who claim that thousands of blacks voluntarily fought (and were accepted) in Confederate armies have a very direct reason. Bruce Levine, in his article "Black Confederates" in the most recent issue of _North & South_ magazine explains it very well. "This alleged black support for the Confederacy," he writes, "in turn, becomes proof that the Civil War did not occur because of slavery and that the Confederacy did not fight to preserve slavery. The war simply pitted one part of the country against another; blacks supported the South becasue they were (and felt they were) Southerners first and were therefore anxious 'to defend their country.' That the southern war effort supposedly welcomed the armed support of its slaves is said to reflect the same thing. Would a Confederate government and citizenry pledged to slavery and white supremacy have wished (or dared) to place arms in so many black hands?" (Levine, "Black Confederates," _North & South_ Vol. 10, No. 2 (July 2007): 41)

Some people on this board have basically proven Levine's point:

Keith said: "Authors and historians that air on the agenda of the National Park Service and the Federal Government will never fully acknowlege the extensive service of the black man in the Confederate military. To do so would contradict the notion of a war fought to free slaves and liberate a race of people."

Paul said: "I expect the lack of Federal records of Black Confederates could probably be due to the fact the yankees would not want to advertize that Black Confederates (slaves & former slaves) were shooting at them...this would blow another hole in their claim that they were fightin to free the slaves."

The 37th Texas website also uses the story of black Confederates (in this case, more of a prediction) to reflect upon the South and its institution in spite of who they call "anti-Confederate liberals": "As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up its army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers,even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war." http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html

Also from a story on the 37th Texas website, more talk of a conspiracy to hide the "truth" at the expense of the Confederate image: "Capt. Kelley of the 34th Texas regards these denouncements as fighting words. Like Terrell's Calvary, which ignored Lee's surrender and raged on, he refuses to give in, no matter what the critics say. According to him, the "real" history has been suppressed to maintain a simplistic, lopsided view that neatly divides the war into a contest between Northern heroes and Southern villains: 'By maintaining this false image of the Confederate Army as this sea of lily-white faces, the South can be demonized, and therefore it becomes very clear-cut,' he says. 'That way, they can say...that Southerners were fighting for slavery and racism, and Yankees were fighting to free the slaves. Which is false.'" http://www.37thtexas.org/html/Wshcitypaper.html

Now, it is admirable to emphasize previously ignored or misunderstood elements of history. I do not know anyone who says that there were absolutely no blacks who fought for the South, nor do I know anyone who says that black service to the Confederacy should be ignored or forgotten. The problem is that people and organizations like the 37th Texas are not actually interested in promoting serious, objective history. They may claim they are, and they may believe that they are. But by their own admissions, they labor to protect the "image" of the Confederacy. The 37th Texas' main goal is to combat what they see as "revisionist" history that reflects poorly upon the Confederacy.

The emphasis of black Confederates, which has risen to claims of tens of thousands of blacks willingly picking up arms in military ranks to defend the South, has become a tool to argue over the very nature of the sectional conflict. It is not simply like arguing over how many casualties there were at Gettysburg. Some people have latched onto this topic to "prove" that the Confederacy was not as dedicated to white supremacy as many people believe. That is why it is so controversial.

I do not dispute the fact that some black Southerners voluntarily supported and even fought for the Confederacy during the war. I do not know the number, but available evidence suggests that it was likely in the hundreds rather than the thousands. Furthermore, the motives or reasons behind such service cannot be so easily assumed. Some blacks likely did embrace a political dedication to the South. Others just as likely acted out of self-interest.

I have no interest in trying to argue that the Union set out in 1861 to free the slaves. I have said on this board repeatedly that the primary goal of the federal government throughout the war was to resist secession. Slavery was inherently involved in the sectional conflict and quickly became entangled in the war for political and military reasons, and by 1863 it was a significant Union war objective. But the main military goal was reunification.

I do object to the use of black Confederates (of whatever number) to deny the inherent role slavery played in the overall conflict and to deny the importance of white supremacy in the South.