Keith,

I find an irony in the complaint that I did not immediately accept your conclusions or evidence, or that of David, or of anyone else --- apparently, you don't accept my conclusions or evidence either. I have quoted Jefferson Davis and Seddon (and many other Confederate leaders in a variety of posts). Yet, YOUR response was: "Your argument doesn't hold up Craig. Most of your opinions and statements that you quoted were from politicians. I automatically hold them as suspect." http://history-sites.com/mb/cw/nvcwmb/index.cgi?read=48843

Perhaps you can explain to me why you can so easily dismiss ALL of my provided quotations wholesale while I am to criticized for suggesting problems with individual accounts one at a time.

The problem here is not that I or you or anyone else may question a source. Historians always question sources. The problem here is not that I or you or anyone else may energetically defend an argument or conclusion. Historians do that too. It seems the problem is that you and a few other people don't quite understand that such elements are part of historical study and discussion.

For instance, you provide an account about 3,000 blacks serving in a Confederate corps in 1862. I explained that such numbers do not seem likely since leading Confederate officials seemed unaware of such a development. (Furthermore, weren't you wrong about whose corps you were talking about anyway?) The Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon specifically wrote in 1863 that the South did "not allow the emploment as armed soldiers of negroes," and that "no slaves have been employed by the Government except as cooks or nurses in hospitals for labor." (quoted in Bruce Levine, "Black Confederates," _North & South_ 10, no. 2 (July 2007): 41, 42)

That is some very important evidence that needs to be considered regarding the accuracy of claims that 3,000 blacks fought with Jackson a year earlier.

As for Frederick Douglass, I pointed out that he was likely referring to something second- or even third-hand. Had he personally seen black men fighting in Confederate ranks? I also explained that he was an activist for black freedom and rights, and worked to have black men accepted in military service. He was not a casual observer.

Such questioning of a source is not unwarranted; in fact, it is absolutely necessary. If someone provided a quote from, say Edwin Stanton, that Robert E. Lee regularly beat his slaves, I'd like to know how Stanton would come about that information and I would point out that Stanton opposed (and I believe disliked) Lee.

Historical evidence should be treated similarly to eye witnesses in a legal case. Questions such as "who is the witness," "how did he/she get this information," "why is he/she reporting it," "what is his/her relationship to the subject matter," etc., are all vitally important. Historical sources are not always objective transcripts of something said or done, but the thoughts, feelings, and interests of a person intimately involved in the event.

So, you SHOULD question Seddon's words, and those of Lee and Davis and Douglass. Such questioning does not mean we dismiss them outright, but try to understand their strengths and weaknesses as sources.

You also should analyze and question my posts. I don't expect them to be taken as gospel---I never have. I do, however, expect anyone who disagrees with my arguments to provide a counter argument with evidence. Just saying that I'm "wrong" or that I have an "agenda" certainly won't change my mind about the evidence and the history. Complaining that I don't accept evidence you provide when you outright dismiss ALL the quotations and sources I provide doesn't make much sense. Are you upset that I'm not taking your arguments as the gospel? (It would appear so, since you are frustrated and complaining that I continue to disagree with you and argue another conclusion.)

"The fact is that Blacks did freely participate with the Confederate military not only as cooks, blacksmiths, teamsters, "ditch diggers" and personal aides but as legitimate rifle toting combat soldiers."

Whether ANY blacks served as soldiers is not a question here. I've repeatedly said that indeed some blacks did fight for the Confederacy. The number is up for debate, as is the variety of reasons these men chose to fight for the Confederacy.

"And does a support person in the military not qualify him as a soldier?"

Probably not, if the support person is a slave or laboring through coercion. Many of those support people ran into Union lines when they had a chance.

"If not then there are a lot of folks out there today that cook, clean, do I.T. work, run errands and generally pitch in in a non combat role that evidently don't count."

One important question is whether they are considered soldiers by the government employing them (and of course, whether their service is voluntary and not forced labor).