"Personally I enjoy wading through OR reports, but it's not everyone's cup of tea.
People disagree on this issue for reasons other than lack of knowledge, bias or prejudice. For example, I'm motivated by historical accuracy, and we seem to disagree on this issue. It could well be due to the words we use. You've shifted the focus away from combat to support roles, so we have something different to consider."

No I have shifted my focus, I posted plenty of OR references that use the word armed which at first you contended they were not. I posted notations from historians that could help explain why we see so many black men listed in support rolls, and I also pointed out for the same support role in the US Army, a man was called a "soldier." I even posted that I have at least one Confederate soldier in my family that was a Confederate "rancher' yet he is listed as a soldier. In my family and 7th Miss. Infantry study I have several men listed as either nurses, musicians or teamsters and each man is carried as a soldier. So now why shouldn't a black man doing the same job be considered a soldier?

"Okay George, do you feel a little better now?

Why the sarcasm????

GP