Depends on the source. The account Eveyln Rard cited is much more believable than others found across the internet. That's because it came from a witness who described something he actually knew from first-hand experience. She also told us about the newspaper and the date, so it could be checked out and verified.

Evidently folks on this board still revere Frederick Douglas even though he hated white Southern slaveholders. The only reason is that FD made a statement about there being thousands upon thousands of armed black men in Confederate service. Nobody questions how he came by this information or wonders why he should be treated as an expert witness. He just happens to have a name that people recognize and says things that some people want to believe.

You also have to apply common sense and try to think about things from the perspective of the people involved, not our own. For example, people today frequently condemn slavery because they believe it's morally wrong. If you really want to be serious about history, you really need to take off your modern-day glasses and start trying to think about events and people the way they did. As I mentioned to you earlier, people at that time did things for their reasons, not ours.

Slaves were by definition under someone else's control. People seem to believe that slaves made decisions to enlist on their own and were independent agents. They need to get a dictionary.

Since other people want to cite scripture on this topic, I will, too. Acts 17:11

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

In other words, it may sound good or bad, but examine a statement before you give it complete acceptance.

Pam, I would be happy to further discuss sources if you wish. Bottom line - you don't accept a statement strictly because it reads the way you want.