African American Civil War Memorial

2012-02-03T07:48:00.000-05:00

On January 31, 2012 I was one of four panelists at the Necessary Sacrifices Pre-Performance Seminar hosted by the Ford’s Theater Society. The seminar, held in Ford’s Theater Center for Education and Leadership, investigated the lives and leadership of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. The following is what I shared:

In the autumn of 1847, in the last issue of The Mystery, the mother of The North Star, Martin Delany wrote, “We leave ‘The Mystery’ for a union with the far famed and world renowned Frederick Douglass, as a co-laborer, in the cause of our oppressed brethren, by publication of a large and capacious paper, ‘The North Star’ in Rochester, N.Y., … which cannot fail to be productive and of signal benefit to the slave and our nominally free brethren when the head and heart of Douglass enters into the combination.”

In Frederick Douglass’ autobiography Life and Times there is no mention of this “combination” with Delany. Douglass claims the sole proprietorship of The North Star referring to it as simply “my paper.” Yet the paper was clearly their paper with backing from established African American leaders. Douglass’ failure to mention this “combination” deprives his readers of information critical to understanding African American leaders and their activities before and during the Civil War.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, African American leaders such as Prince Hall, Absalom Jones, George Lawrence, and Lewis Woodson advocated working in league with the Constitution to end slavery and to gain their rights as citizens. Allan Pinkerton would come to know the secret national organization derived from their advocacy as the “Loyal League,” of which The Mystery and The North Star were organs. The organization was also known as the Legal League and in the Mississippi Valley as Lincoln’s Legal Loyal League or simply the 4Ls.

League insiders believed that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were in the words of Absalom Jones “divine instruments of goodness.” They believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document and that in league with that “divine instrument of goodness,” they could end the tyranny of slavery and gain their rights as citizens. Until the autumn of 1847, as a self-proclaimed disciple of William Lloyd Garrison, Douglass believed that the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. Yet when Douglass “enters into the combination” with Delany, a League insider, Douglass embraced the belief that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document. In Life and Times, Douglass discusses this change in position, but he fails to mention those who persuaded or influenced him to change his position.

Douglass and Delany were indeed co-founders and co-editors of The North Star. A careful examination of Delany’s and Douglass’ articles in their paper reveals clearly that Delany targeted African American readers while Douglass targeted European American readers. As the Civil War approached, Douglass was the most influential African American voice among European Americans while Delany was the “planner” or rather the operations officer for the Loyal League relinquishing leadership of the secret organization to William Howard Day in 1856.

On January 26, 1863, Governor John Andrew of Massachusetts was granted permission by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to raise African descent regiments for Federal service, and Andrew commissioned George Stearns to head the recruiting effort. That February Stearns employed Douglass as a recruiting agent in New York. Douglass’ first recruit was his youngest son Charles, but his eldest son Lewis did not enlist at that time. Douglass’ recruitment speech “Men of Color to Arms” appeared in the Frederick Douglass Monthly in March 1863; however, it is important to note that Douglass’ journal was not the journal of choice for the young men of African descent who joined the Massachusetts regiments. The Anglo-African edited by Robert Hamilton in New York City was their journal of choice. And the most prolific recruiter for the 54th Massachusetts in New York was not Frederick Douglass. The most prolific recruiter in New York was George Stevens, a war correspondent for the Anglo-African who had covered both Battles of Bull Run and the Battle of Antietam. Stevens himself enlisted in the Fifty-fourth, became the first sergeant of company B and was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant in 1865.

Douglass was more successful as a fund raiser than he was as a recruiter. The most successful recruiters for the 54th Massachusetts were in Ohio. Thirty-two percent of the regiment was recruited out of Ohio with an African American businessman O. S. B. Wall and an African American lawyer John Mercer Langston being the top recruiters in that state. However, the individual who emerges as the most important coordinator of the recruitment of African descent soldiers in 1863 was Martin Delany. Headquartered in Chicago, Delany was first engaged as a recruiting agent for Massachusetts, and he became the managing agent in the West and Southwest for other northern states. In association with an African American businessman in Chicago John Jones, they were able “to raise black troops from all parts of the country.” Delany reported to Secretary Stanton, “We are able sir, to command all the effective black men, as agents, in the United States.” Emphasis here is that Delany was able “to command” effective agents not simply be an effective agent. With Delany you got an effective organization while with Douglass you got a notable personality.

It was the effectiveness of this organization known as Lincoln’s Legal Loyal League (or simply the 4Ls) in the Mississippi Valley that made Stanton’s offer to commission Frederick Douglass as an assistant to General Lorenzo Thomas unnecessary. Douglass was simply not the best qualified for such an assignment. The League dispatched many “effective agents” to the Mississippi Valley in 1863 to assist General Thomas in recruiting and to assist General Ulysses S. Grant in military operations. Soon after Douglass met with President Lincoln on August 8, 1863, the President received a letter from General Grant declaring, “By arming the negro we have added a powerful ally.”

The three issues covered by Douglass in his first meeting with Lincoln were 1) the unequal pay mandated by Congress in section 15 of the Militia Act of 1862, which authorized the enlistment of men of African descent into the army, 2) the commissioning of African descent officers, and 3) the treatment of African descent soldiers when captured. On June 15, 1864, President Lincoln signed legislation that equalized the pay and granted arrears to African descent soldiers. As for commissions, it is important to note that over eighty African American officers had been commissioned before August 1863. Lincoln had ordered the commissioning of Dr. Alexander Augusta as a captain in October 1862. Over seventy African Americans had been commissioned in the Department of the Gulf upon the recommendation of General Benjamin Butler and approved by the War Department before January 1, 1863. However, General Nathaniel Banks forced most of the officers commissioned by General Butler out of service by the summer of 1863, and it was not until late 1864 that commissions were submitted and approved for combat arms officers in the Eastern Theater. Chaplains had been commissioned in that theater as early as September 1863. President Lincoln ordered the commissioning of Martin Delany as a major of infantry in February 1865. Major Delany became the commander of the 104th US Colored Infantry, and O. S. B. Wall was commissioned a captain and became the regiment’s executive officer. Lewis Douglass, the original sergeant major of the 54th Massachusetts, like many other senior noncommissioned officers in the 54th was competent enough to be an officer. Lewis, however, was discharged for medical reasons in May 1864 and was not among the noncommissioned officers from the 54th who did receive commissions. Finally, on the issue of the treatment of African descent POWs, the Confederates eventually changed their policy and behavior due primarily to the retributions exacted by Generals Grant and Butler. Also of note is that the unsanctioned actions of Confederate soldiers such as the massacre at Fort Pillow were brought to an end by the retributions exacted by African descent soldiers. General John Alexander Logan wrote, “The cry with which our Union black soldiers went into battle – ‘Remember Fort Pillow’ – inspired them to great deeds of valor, and struck with fear the hearts of the enemy. Fort Pillow was avenged on many a bloody field.”

Frederick Douglass was indeed an important American abolitionist and an influential editor before and during the Civil War. But we must be cautious not to overstate Douglass’ role as an African American leader. If we truly want to understand the contributions of African Americans in their fight for freedom, we must dig deep into the archives, which include the notable works of Douglass and the works of many others who were far more prolific recruiters and far more effective leaders within America’s African descent communities.

The Contrarian

2011-12-21T23:57:00.000-05:00

Reading Ta-Nehisi Coates’ “Reflections” on my most resent blog entry and the related posts, I discovered that people who don’t know I write the African American Civil War Museum blog were reading it. One such person suggested that I was anonymous as a consequence of cowardice. My name is Hari Jones, curator of the museum. I really take offense to the criticism that my blog activity is monthly because I have never been better than a quarterly blogger. Blogging diverts my attention from researching. When it comes to my blogging skill set, it is not even sophomoric. It is elementary. But I have been compelled by the current situation to become somewhat more frequent.

As for my comments on Coates’ essay, I do believe I should have done a better job explaining the observation that his Civil War scholarship is sophomoric. Evident in the citations and observations presented in his essay, we get a rather eloquent regurgitation of the works of esteemed scholars and brilliant reiterations of obvious observations. The essay is like a “hip hop remix” with only contemporary rock and roll and absolutely no soul. Two of his three quotations of African Americans are through European American writers (Mary Livermore quoted Aunt Aggy, and Thomas Higginson quoted Corporal Thomas Long.). The African American most quoted in elementary school essays Frederic Douglass is the only person of African descent to get into the remix with a direct quote. Coates is too intelligent to remain sophomoric, so that criticism is temporal. (Yet, I am sure I shall remain elementary as a blogger.)

Also Coates failed to identify the failure of his Afro-centric education. The problem with telling this story accurately over the past twenty-two years, since the movie Glory, has not been the result of European American scholars who obviously suppressed and falsified the story for the first half of the 20th century. The problem is that those who seized the reigns of Afro-centric education failed to properly educate their students on this critical era in African American history. Coates as evinced in his own words is a poster child for that failure. And by ignoring that failure, his essay would be more properly named “How Whites Discouraged Blacks From Studying the Civil War.” But that is only part of the phenomenon resulting in relatively few African Americans studying the Civil War. As I often say, “the problem is not a ‘white’ conspiracy in the 21st century. It is simply the bad scholarship of persons of African and European descent.”

Now someone even referred to my commitment to excellence in scholarship as a “vendetta.” I would hate to give up my research time to pursue such a petty campaign. But I do get emotional when people fail to recognize the legacy of our African descent forefathers and contemporary leaders. If we mistakenly overlook the contributions of our contemporary leaders, who we know best, we cannot be expected to understand the legacy of our USCT ancestors and other Civil War freedom fighters. To overlook the Frank Smith Jr. of 2011 is to overlook the John S. Rock of 1861. My aggressiveness was motivated by my commitment to the legacy of America’s African descent patriots. With eloquence, Coates admits that he made a mistake of omission because of his unintentional oversight, an oversight that he has taken action to correct.

Another post I would like to address is the suggestion that my use of the phrase “black writer selected” alludes to tokenism. Coates knows his merits as a writer got him his position as a senior editor at The Atlantic. As a writer, he is no more a token to The Atlantic as Kevin Garnet is a token to the OKC Thunder. I will here iterate that I knew him to be “a gifted writer” before he got the position. He is indeed one of the best of the brilliant young writers that have experienced the magic of the You Street Corridor from the 1990s to now. As a lover of that legacy, I am proud to claim him as part of a You Street literary legacy that dates back to the 1890s. "Before Harlem" for Ta-Nehisi Coates, "there was You Street." We here on You Street love that he is a senior editor at The Atlantic, and we expect him to remember that there is an African American Civil War Memorial at 10th and You Street Northwest in Washington, DC.

Because of my harsh criticisms of inaccuracies, those who do not share my love for primary sources and accuracy have accused me of being a contrarian. Indeed, I am a contrarian when it comes to inaccuracies in history, intentional or unintentional. We should all be contrarians in those situations. Though embracing the label scholar, I am not by definition nor position an academic. I am however consistently critical of academics who endorse Juneteenth as it is currently promoted and explained, who endorse Glory as a story “almost perfectly aligned with the historical evidence” and who do not mention the accomplishments of African American soldiers during the Civil War, such as the capturing of Richmond. My criticism of Coates is consistent with my criticism of academics. Like many of them, he is a mature intellectual. Coates has addressed the issue of his oversight, and I expect his scholarship will improve to the unknown-to-me limits of his intellect. My prayer is that all Americans will become contrarians until we teach in our schools the accurate history of our nation and our world. Let there one day be no need for such contrarians as I.

Removing the Coat that Hides the African American Civil War Memorial

2011-12-20T18:37:00.004-05:00

On National Public Radio (NPR) recently, the black writer that The Atlantic selected to explain why so few blacks study the Civil War declared that African Americans, at least to his knowledge, have no Civil War monuments. Ta-Nehisi Coates, a journalist and senior editor with The Atlantic turned Civil War buff, was certainly feigning ignorance. As a Howard University student in the 1990s, he surely witnessed the construction of the African American Civil War Memorial a few blocks from his campus. Indeed, a little over a year ago he interviewed Frank Smith Jr., the director of the foundation that built the memorial. Why did Coates feign ignorance of the African American Civil War Memorial in front of a national audience? Did he really not remember the bronze statue named the Spirit of Freedom located on U Street in Washington, DC since 1998 and the Wall of Honor behind it with the names of over 200,000 Civil War freedom fighters of African descent?

In a well written article in The Atlantic entitled “Why Do So Few Blacks Study the Civil War,” Ta-Nehisi Coates shares his narrative on how he became a “Civil War buff.” He reports that his sojourn began three years ago when he read James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom. Coates credits McPherson for his Civil War awakening. “Transfixed by the war’s central role in making democracy real, I morphed into a Civil War buff,” wrote Coates. He notes that he has subsequently visited battlefields in Tennessee and Virginia, but he does not however mention a visit to the National Archives in Washington, DC. Therefore, I conclude that he has not conducted primary source research at that important American repository.

Coates’ article is an intelligent and well-informed complaint against the American scholars who for over a century have argued that slavery was not a cause of the Civil War. His central argument is that European American scholars have misled and ultimately mis-educated African Americans on the Civil War and therefore blacks believe “the Civil War is a story for white people—acted out by white people, on white people’s terms—in which blacks feature strictly as stock characters and props.” Yet, most notably his article is a serious indictment of his Afro-centric education and the history programs at historically black colleges and universities(HBCUs), especially since he attended the HBCU that is heralded as the Mecca of those institutions. On the campus of Howard in the 1990s, Coates was known to boast that his Afro-centric education began at home long before he entered Howard. With this Afro-centric advantage, Coates rather condescendingly made fun of his fellow students who were awakened to Afro-centricity at Howard. By his own admission we now know that his Afro-centric education in the Coates’ household in Baltimore and at Howard was inadequate.

Awakened to this period of African American history by James McPherson, Coates notes that McPherson points out “that titans of American history like Charles Beard, Avery Craven, and James G. Randall minimized the role of slavery in the war; some blamed the violence on irreconcilable economic differences between a romantic pastoral South and a capitalistic manufacturing North, or on the hot rhetoric of radical abolitionists.” In 1935, W. E. B. DuBois noted that such “titans of American history” including William A. Dunning of Columbia University were engaged in such scholarship or rather “propaganda.” Certainly, a good Afro-centric education would have exposed Coates to the writings of DuBois. The failure of his Afro-centric education is disconcerting. Yet, even more disconcerting is his failure to address this failure.

However, Coates does admit that his teachers at home and at school failed to mention the critical role of African Americans in the Civil War. (DuBois does mention this role in his 1935 essay entitled “The Propaganda of History,” which is also the last chapter of his book Black Reconstruction in America, and Benjamin Quarles addresses their contributions in his 1953 book entitled The Negro in the Civil War.) Ultimately the failure of his Afro-centric upbringing and education was two-fold. One, his educators did not teach him that leading titans of American history were attempting to minimize the role of slavery as a cause of the Civil War even though leading African American scholars had written and published on the subject. Two, his educators did not teach him that African Americans played a critical role in the Civil War even though leading African American scholars had written and published on the subject. There is a trend here, the failure to recognize what African American scholars have been doing, that leads to a third failure that belongs solely to Coates. He fails to recognize the African Americans who have been “moving from protest to production, the burden of summoning our own departed hands, so that they, too, may leave a mark.” If a young black writer with a national audience ignores the work of those leaving that “mark,” then the problem is the education the young black writer turned Civil War buff failed to get and not the “titans of American history.” Indeed the titans of African American history recognized the contributions of African Americans in the Civil War and established a scholarly foundation on which we have built a memorial and a museum.

Coates is a gifted writer, but his scholarship on the Civil War is sophomoric. And if indeed he was exposed to the works of W. E. B. DuBois and Benjamin Quarles, and it is likely his father(founder of Black Classic Press) has republished some of their works, his lack of knowledge on what African Americans have been writing on this subject and doing to tell their story is appalling. Reading James McPherson, Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote, watching the Ken Burn’s Civil War series, and walking battlefields are good beginnings for a Civil War buff. But to become a credible spokesman on why so few blacks study the Civil War, he should at a minimum recognize the African Americans who have taken on “the burden of summoning our own departed hands, so that they, too, may leave a mark.” They have spent many hours adding up to years studying primary sources. By imagining that they do not exist or rather intentionally ignoring that they exist, the three year-old Civil War buff with the help of The Atlantic and NPR as his pulpit becomes the “black” spokesman. This kind of behavior retards if not suppresses the telling of the African American story.

The African American Civil War Museum shares the African American experience in the Civil War by using primary sources. And with a critical analysis of the works of the aforementioned European American historians as well as the work of Benjamin Quarles, an important African American historian who taught at Morgan State in Baltimore for decades, we give lectures and seminars to educators. In our exhibit entitled “The Glorious March to Liberty: Civil War to Civil Rights,” we quote only history makers. We quote no scholars. If you were not there in the making of the history, you do not get a quote in our exhibit. We recognize the contributions of the African Americans who came before us, and we do not pretend to be the first to carry “the burden of summoning our own departed hands, so that they, too, may leave a mark.”

With the national attention garnered from NPR and The Atlantic, it would do our community, his community, great service if Coates became familiar with the work of the museum and the aforementioned African American scholars. He can begin by reviewing his own notes and videotape from his 2010 interview of the museum’s founding director Frank Smith Jr. To jog his memory, he can pay us a visit at our new site across the street from the African American Civil War Memorial. We’ve been getting visits from a lot of Civil War buffs who want to learn more about the African American experience in the Civil War.

Should America Celebrate Juneteenth Day?

2011-06-19T02:20:00.010-04:00

American school children have been taught that President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves on January 1, 1863. However, Lincoln’ s Emancipation Proclamation only declared free slaves in the rebel states. There were fifteen slaveholding states in January 1863. The Proclamation applied to the ten states in rebellion, the ten states that were fighting a bloody war against the Lincoln led government in Washington. Therefore, Lincoln’ s proclamation had to be enforced by the military. Slaves in the rebel states were freed when federal authority was reestablished in those rebellious states by military force, and African Americans played a major role in the military victory that resulted in their liberation. African Americans who celebrate Juneteenth Day implicitly embrace the idea that the slaves were freed on January 1, 1863, and “ without any effort of their own.” Why do these celebrants accept as truth an inaccurate description of their own ancestors as “ inert recipients of freedom”? Most of them value the importance of knowing their history. Would they continue to celebrate Juneteenth if they knew their history? And why don’t they know their history?

In a 1935 essay entitled the “ Propaganda of History” , W. E. B. Du Bois wrote that influential European American scholars falsified the history of the Civil War in order to suppress the fact that the United States government, the Union, “ had to call in the black men to save the Union, abolish slavery and established democracy.” The success of the propaganda campaign that Du Bois identified resonates today in the attempts to make Juneteenth Day (June 19) a national holiday. Over thirty states have made June 19 a state holiday, representing a major victory for the historians or rather the propagandists who deliberately falsified Civil War history to make African Americans appear to be “ inert recipients of freedom” who did nothing to free themselves.

The National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) under the leadership of Ronald V. Myers aggressively seeks to make June 19 a national holiday. Announcing that Nevada had become the 39th state to establish June 19 as a state holiday, NJOF explained the significance of the Juneteenth. In this news release dated May 11, 2011, the explanation reads:

Juneteenth recognizes the day, June 19, 1865, when Union General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas to read General Order #3, announcing "all slaves are free" through the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln. It took over two and a half years for the news to reach Southwest Texas, the last geographic area in America where slavery was practiced, creating the oldest African American freedom celebration and America's second Independence Day.

Let us closely examine the veracity of this statement and show how it’ s lack of historical accuracy aligns with the propaganda or simply the lies of those who have sought to suppress the history of how Americans of African descent freed themselves while saving the Union.

NJOF states, “ It took over two and a half years for the news [of President Lincoln’ s Emancipation Proclamation] to reach Southwest Texas.” Clearly implied is that the enslaved in Southwest Texas were doing nothing to free themselves between January 1863 and June 19, 1865, and clearly advanced is the description of the Negroes in Texas as woefully ignorant of events related to the bloody national debate. NJOF’ s statement is perfectly aligned with the deliberate lie of W. E. Woodward when he wrote: “ The American Negroes are the only people in the history of the world, so far as I know, that ever became free without any effort of their own.” To state that slaves in Texas did not get the “ news” that they were free until June 19, 1865 when Granger announced “ all slaves are free” is to assert that slaves in Texas (and in all the states where the Emancipation Proclamation applied) were freed “ without any effort of their own.”

Also NJOF purports that Southwest Texas was “ the last geographic area in America where slavery was practiced” and that slavery came to an end there when Granger read his order in Galveston, Texas on June 19, 1865. Galveston however is not in Southwest Texas. It is in Southeast Texas. The Union Army under General Nathaniel P. Banks captured Brownsville, Texas, which is in Southwest Texas, in November 1863. (See Harper’ s Weekly, November 28, 1863 at http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/brazos-santiago-texas.htm. Also see December 12, 1863 article entitled “ The Texas Campaign” at http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/civil-war-guerrillas.htm. See also January 16, 1864 article entitled “ Texas” at http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1864/january/texas-expedition.htm. ) Five African descent regiments took part in this Union victory that resulted the Union Army occupying the southwestern tip of Texas for the duration of the war. These regiments became a part of the Union’ s occupation force in Southwest Texas from 1863 to the end of the war in 1865. (See National Park Service Soldiers and Sailors System (NPSSS): http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/regiments.cfm “ Search Regiments” and submit query for the “ Union” 85th US Colored Troops, 87th US Colored Troops, 95th US Colored Troops, 96th US Colored Troops and 97th US Colored Troops.) Two additional regiments of US Colored Troops were added to the occupation force in 1864. (See NPSSS and submit query for 20th US Colored Troops and 62nd US Colored Troops.)

Another notable error in the NJOF press release is the proclamation that Southwest Texas was “the last geographic area in America where slavery was practiced.” Kentucky, Delaware, twelve parishes in Louisiana and seven counties in Virginia that were exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation were, in fact, “ the last geographic area[s] in America where slavery was practiced.” (See the “ Emancipation Proclamation” .) In these geographic areas slavery did not come to an end until December 1865 when the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. NJOF also claims that Juneteenth is “ the oldest African American freedom celebration.” However, based on events during the Civil War, Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia (April 16, 1862) was the first African American freedom celebration, therefore, the oldest such celebration related to the Civil War. (See National Archives Records Administration “ Featured Documents” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/dc_emancipation_act/ .)

Without an appreciation of the facts related to emancipation, Ronald Myers and his foundation continues to lobby Congress in hopes of establishing Juneteenth Day as a national holiday. The foundation’ s premise for Juneteenth is clearly false. The official explanation of the historical significance of the day is fictitious. Therefore, Myers and his foundation are attempting to legitimize false history. Unwittingly, this African American organization is suppressing the empowering story of how Americans of African descent freed themselves while saving the Union. This African American foundation enthusiastically makes it appear that African Americans “ are the only people in the history of the world… that ever became free without any effort of their own.” Myers and his foundation perpetuate the false assertions of Woodward and others who have sought to conceal the accurate story. Woodward was clearly a propagandist who lacked integrity, and Ronald Myers as president of the NJOF is unwittingly a Woodward disciple.

The truth is that African Americans played a critical role in their own liberations, and this story needs to be told and celebrated. African American soldiers were instrumental in the Union gaining a stronghold in Southwest Texas in 1863; in capturing Charleston, South Carolina, the Cradle of Secession, on February 18, 1865; in capturing Richmond, Virginia, the Capital of the Confederacy on April 3, 1865; and in driving the Confederate governor of Texas and his army out of Texas, out of the country into Mexico on June 15, 1865, four days before Granger arrived in Galveston. Without knowledge of such historical facts, thousands of conscious African Americans celebrate Juneteenth Day. Knowledge of the successful efforts of victorious African American freedom fighters in the Civil War compels us to reject the history presented by Woodward and his unwitting disciples. Conscious men such as Myers are victims of a very successful propaganda campaign and are apparently unaware of the facts. Section two of the Nevada legislation calls on educators to advance the false statement that June 19, 1865 is “ when the last slaves in the United States were emancipated.” Consequently, a lie has become law in Nevada. How has this happened in thirty-nine states when the accurate history is easily accessible? It has happened because the propaganda campaign identified by Du Bois was successful in mis-educating many conscious African Americans, and these African Americans have successfully institutionalized a lie that suppresses the accomplishments of their own ancestors.

Du Bois wrote in his 1935 essay: “ One has but to read the debates in Congress and state papers from Abraham Lincoln down to know that the decisive action which ended the Civil War was the emancipation and arming of the black slave; that, as Lincoln said: ‘ Without the military help of black freedmen, the war against the South could not have been won.’ The freedmen, far from being the inert recipients of freedom at the hands of philanthropists, furnished 200,000 soldiers in the Civil War who took part in nearly 200 battles and skirmishes, and in addition perhaps 300,000 other as effective laborers and helpers.”

The victims, the mis-educated, must be made aware of the truth. And after being exposed to the truth they should cease and desist from advancing Woodward’ s lie by celebrating Juneteenth as the day when the last enslaved people got word that someone in Washington had freed them. Certainly, informed and knowledgeable people should not celebrate the suppression of their own history. Juneteenth Day is a de facto celebration of such suppression. Americans, especially Americans of African descent, should not celebrate that which suppresses the story of how our “ new birth of freedom” was conceived. We should celebrate the story of how America’ s enslaved freed themselves by helping to save the Union. Such freedmen were heroes not spectators, and their story is currently being suppressed by the advocates of the Juneteenth national holiday.

Click on the link below to view the video related to this post:

DE FACTO PROPAGANDA

2011-05-03T20:43:00.002-04:00

The United States Capitol Historical Society (USCHC) will host a symposium on “Emancipation during the Civil War” at the Capitol Visitors Center from May 5 -7, 2011. The title is of interest to me, but I will not attend this symposium because USCHC has selected an academic that either lacks primary source knowledge on the subject or lacks integrity when addressing the subject of African Americans in the Civil War. To adequately address the subject of emancipation, a scholar should possess knowledge on African Americans in the Civil War that evinces an intimacy with primary sources related to the subject.

USCHC has selected Gary Gallagher of the University of Virginia as their keynote speaker to open the symposium on Thursday night, May 5, 2011. Gallagher has actually argued that the movie Glory is “almost perfectly aligned with the historical evidence” (see his June 2009 article in the Civil War Times). The fact that this Civil War expert made such a statement is clear evidence that he is either unfamiliar with the primary sources related to the subject or a liar. Either option is enough for me to boycott any event where he is brought in as an expert on emancipation during the Civil War, which pertains to the African American experience.

I am often asked why the well-documented experience of African Americans during the Civil War is still being suppressed while Glory is being promoted. Some believe that there is a contemporary conspiracy by scholars like Gallagher. I do not think there is such a conspiracy. I do believe, however, that their promotion of a Hollywood movie is a consequence of their poor scholarship. The movie Glory is obliviously fiction, and false statements are presented as truth in the postscript moving it even further out of alignment “with the historical evidence.” Gallagher and others continue to ignore such facts because they are ignorant of the facts. The conspiracy theorists believe that such ignorance is intentional.

Are scholars like Gallagher intentionally misrepresenting the experience of African Americans during the Civil War? The conspiracy theorists argue that surely these scholars aren’t ignorant of the facts. They do not believe that Gallagher really thinks the movie is “almost perfectly aligned with the historical evidence.” I disagree with the conspiracy theorists. I believe that Gallagher and other esteemed scholars are ignorant of the facts because they are simply victims of the conspiracy that was, a propaganda campaign that tainted the scholarship of our nation’s leading Civil War historians for over five decades.

In 1935 W. E. B. DuBois wrote in his essay “The Propaganda of History” that Northern scholars such as William Archibald Dunning of Columbia University had suppressed and falsified the history of emancipation during the Civil War because they were “ashamed they had to call on the black man to save the Union, abolish slavery, and establish democracy in the United States.” DuBois detailed the intentional suppression of this history. He identified institutions like Columbia and Johns Hopkins as being at the forefront of advancing the idea that “the Negro had done nothing to free himself.” This is still a popular notion among the well educated, especially among those who have the propensity to think African Americans were inferior or simply victims as a consequence of their conditions in the 19th century.

Leading African American scholars have done little or nothing to dispel the false images and grossly inaccurate history promoted by Glory because many of them were introduced to the military experience of African Americans in the Civil War by the movie. Accomplished scholars have told me how grateful they are to the moviemakers because they were not aware that African Americans had even fought in the Civil War before they saw the movie. They promote the movie twenty-two years after it premiered even though they know it is not “almost perfectly aligned with the historical evidence.”An African American scholar at Howard University told me that he recommends the movie to his students “because of its effort – however feeble – to portray the meeting of Northern and Southern blacks during the war.” Therefore, he is willing to take the images and concepts of a movie admitting that they are “feeble” to his students as images and concepts of instruction. The result is that he promotes poor scholarship instead of encouraging rigorous scholarship and analytical thinking.

Such “feeble” attempts, here meaning pathetic attempts, to teach history result in de facto propaganda and the appearance of a conspiracy to mislead or rather mis-educate. Gary Gallagher may indeed be an expert in some area of the Civil War, but his endorsement of Glory as “almost perfectly aligned with the historical evidence” is clear evidence that he is no expert on “emancipation during the Civil War.” The United States Capitol Historical Society will hold a symposium that is a “feeble” attempt to address “Emancipation during the Civil War,” and the attendees will leave with information that will make it more difficult for them to apprehend the truth. Such activities function as de facto propaganda, and for that reason I shall not attend the symposium.

Questions from a 7th Grader Major

2011-03-26T19:09:00.010-04:00

This month, I had the pleasure of speaking at Coppin State University in Baltimore, Maryland. One of the attendees was an exceptionally bright 7th grader by the name of Ime Essien. After asking me some very good questions at the program, he sent me an email with more questions. I read his email at midnight and felt compelled by the eloquence of his request to reply immediately. I have included his email request along with his questions and my answers.

Dear Mr. Jones,

I am the seventh grader, Ime Essien, that came to your lecture at Coppin State University. Thank you for speaking with me about African American soldiers in the Civil War and for the Delany Group Reading List. Your lecture was amazingly helpful for my project. You also have a great knowledge and background about the Civil War. You gave me a lot of important information that I did not already know. I am working on the History Day Project about the success of using African American soldiers in the Civil War. Here are the interview questions I mentioned to you in the attached document. Some of the questions you have already answered in your lecture but I need to quote you in my research paper. I hope you have the time to read and respond to the questions. Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Ime Essien

History Day Interview Questions

1. Why was the petition that Fredrick Douglass had for black [African descent] soldiers in the Union with black [African descent] officers was important for creating more African descent units?

By “black” I understand that you are speaking of Americans of African descent. As a political scientist, I do not accept “black” as a scientifically and culturally accurate description of person of African descent. Therefore, I deleted the word “black” in your questions for the sake of cultural accuracy and good science. The difference in the terms is not simply semantics. It is a question of scientific approach and cultural accuracy.

Frederick Douglass’ petition was important in that it supported the requests of military commanders. Based on prudent military decisions, “necessary war measures”, Abraham Lincoln worked to get the legislative authority to raise African descent units because he
was made aware of their fighting abilities, and these highly motivated freedom fighters were needed to save the Union. Douglass helped in the legislative campaign or rather lobbying campaign. (See his editorial “The War and Slavery” which appeared in the Douglass’ Monthly of August 1861.) Frederick Douglass was important as the editor of a widely read journal. However, as a consequence of the physical and mental abilities of African descent soldiers, General U. S. Grant contributed far more significantly than any other lobbying campaign including Douglass’s. The 4Ls, Lincoln Legal Loyal League, provided very capable soldiers, guides, scouts and spies to Grant’s army during his Vicksburg Campaign. Many of these men were like their progeny today highly intelligent and elite athletes. William Howard Day, Martin Delany and Moses Dickson are the African Americans you should research in order to understand how these highly capable soldiers were recruited and trained. Delany opened a recruiting office in Chicago in 1863. He and John Mercer Langston were the most prolific recruiters of these elite soldiers/athletes. The African descent soldiers who fought with Grant in his Vicksburg Campaign provided the most important reason for more African descent units to be created.
There were less than 200 African descent commissioned officers during the Civil War. Soon after the organization of the first African descent regiments, there were African descent officers and noncommissioned officers who commanded troops in combat. According to the commanding officer of the 33rd USCI, initially organized as the 1st South Carolina, Colonel T. W. Higginson, Sergeant Prince Rivers was far more competent as a commander of patrols and raids than any of Higginson’s officers. (See Higginson’s book Army Life in a Black Regiment). Hundreds of African descent
noncommissioned officers were in de facto command of their troops on the company level. James Bronson, Powhatan Beaty, Milton Holland and William Pinn were noncommissioned officers who earned the Medal of Honor while commanding their companies at the Battle of New Market Heights on September 29, 1864. Two African descent regiments had African descent officers in command (Major Martin Delany 104th USCI and Lieutenant Colonel William Reed 35th USCI), but only one of those officers led his regiment into battle. Lt. Colonel Reed was the executive officer of the 35th USCI and was the acting-commanding officer of the regiment during the Battle of Olustee in February 1864. Reed was killed in action (KIA) on that Florida battlefield.

Major Martin R. Delany, commanding officer of the
104th US Colored Troops, was one of 149
African American officers during the Civil War.

2. What was the difference between the African descent units fighting for the Union and the Confederacy?

Your question assumes that there were African descent units fighting for the Confederacy. There is no official Confederate record that supports this assumption. There is some evidence that there were a small number of men of African descent who fought with the Confederacy, but the only unit of African descent in a Confederate state militia was the Louisiana Native Guards, led by Major F. E. Dumas and Captain A. Cailloux, both became Union officers. The Louisiana Native Guards witnessed acts of sabotage that degraded the defenses of New Orleans while on guard duty for the Confederacy. This regiment subsequently fought for the Union and liberty, like scores of other African descent regiments. The biggest difference, therefore, is that there is no Union unit of African descent that fought for the Confederacy, but there is a Confederate state unit of African descent that fought for the Union.

3. How was the Emancipation Proclamation an important influence for the Union?

General Grant observed that it added a “power ally” to the Union war effort. George Albright said that he was a runner for the 4Ls with the responsibility of taking the word to “secret gathering” that it was the day of the Jubilee and now time to aid the Union. Like the members of the 4Ls, the Emancipation Proclamation “added a powerful ally,” men who were eminently qualified to be soldiers, to the Union cause. African descent soldiers thus armed were made legal liberators by the Emancipation Proclamation. That would be like adding the top athletes in the NBA or NFL to your roster.

4. Why were African descent units created for the Union?

The rebellion of the Confederate States was militarily promising in July 1862. After the “greatest disasters of the war,” African descent units were organized “as a fit and necessary war measure to suppress said rebellion.” Abraham Lincoln states this in the Emancipation Proclamation. Therefore, African descent units were created to preserve the Union, the paramount objective of the federal government during the Civil War.

5. James H. Harris, an African American soldier, received the Medal of Honor for actions at the Battle of New Market Heights during the Civil War. Were there any other African American soldiers in the Civil War to win an award?

The Medal of Honor is earned. It is not “won.” There were 18 African American soldiers and 7 sailors who earned and received the Medal of Honor for acts of gallantry during the Civil War. The first African American to receive the Medal of Honor was the sailor Robert Blake on April 16, 1864.

6. Why was President Lincoln against African descent soldiers in the beginning of the Civil War?

From the primary source evidence, it is clear that President Lincoln supported the legislation authorizing the use of African descent troops. After Congress passed the required legislation, Lincoln’s War Department immediately moved to organize African descent soldiers and deployed them in combat. The reason why many scholars claim that he was against raising African descent regiments is because they are critical of him for not subverting the Constitution by ordering their recruitment at the beginning of the war and such scholars focus on almost humorous Lincoln statements to support their opinion, which is not supported by the records of Lincoln’s actions. Frederick Douglass admonished us to evaluate Lincoln’s commitment to the effort of emancipation by comparing what Lincoln says to what he does. Lincoln does support the legislation to arm men of African descent; Lincoln does deploy African descent soldiers in combat; and Lincoln does give them credit for helping to suppress the rebellion, saving the Union and winning the war. The evidence from official records is clear that Lincoln was not against arming men of African descent.

7. What was the effect of African descent units winning battles for the Union?

General John Alexander Logan wrote that the battle cry of African descent soldiers, “’Remember Fort Pillow!’ – inspired them to deeds of valor, and struck with fear the hearts of the Enemy.” (See The Great Conspiracy by John A. Logan.) Confederate soldiers near the end of the war who were defeated on many battlefields by African descent soldiers grew more reluctant to fight. They deserted at a very high rate.

8. What was the first African American unit in the Civil War?

The first African American regiment officially mustered into the Union Army was the 1st Louisiana Native Guard. However, the smallest “unit” in the Civil War army was a company. Therefore, Company A of the 1st South Carolina led by Sergeant Prince Rivers was the first African American “unit” in the Civil War.

Corrections to Prevent Advancing False Reports

2011-02-12T19:28:00.006-05:00

The false reports often advanced by leading scholars have nothing to do with a conspiracy. They have everything to do with inaccuracies. Whenever we make inaccurate statements or whenever they are attributed to us, we must correct them if we are to apprehend the truth. Defending our mistakes misleads those who trust us. I don’t want to appear right. I really want to get it right. Therefore, I welcome being corrected.

There are scholars like Noah Trudeau, on my "Delany Group Reading List", who I do not believe have advanced false reports. I also have great respect for William Gladstone. There are others, however, who have. See the Civil War Times June 2009 and read the article on the movie Glory. Notably, I think the movie was a great advertisement for the service of African descent soldiers during the Civil War. However, whoever says that it “was almost perfectly aligned with the historical evidence” is making a false report. (See Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune: The Civil War Letters of Robert Gould Shaw.)

We all make mistakes and must be willing to correct those mistakes if we are in the pursuit of the truth. In an earlier blog entry, I wrote that “Sergeant William Carney received the Medal of Honor on May 23, 1863." I should have written May 23, 1900. If I attempted to argue that my mistake is correct, then I would have problems with me. I would indeed be advancing a false report in order to appear right. I was wrong, but that’s an easy one. At one time I thought that Mary Elizabeth Bowser was a spy inside the Confederate White House. I was wrong. James Henry Jones was the spy inside the Confederate White House. There is no evidence that Bowser worked in the Confederate White House. I hated to drop that report, but the facts as I understand them today have compelled me to drop it.

Recently, I read that 75% of the soldiers in the 54^th Massachusetts were college graduates. I even read that I made such a grossly inaccurate statement. The person attributing that statement to me was quoting a newspaper article. If I ever said that I misspoke. However, I most likely said over 75% of the 54^th Massachusetts was literate. Hopefully, in the near future, I will become a hard target when my book is published. Then I will have a better opportunity to correct my own inaccuracies with help of good researchers who love primary sources. I can’t wait to get it right.

Some have asked for the newspapers that reported the capture of Richmond by United States Colored Troops. I refer them to the Philadelphia Press and the Washington National Republican, which in the evening extra on April 3, 1865 reads:

Finally, in order to avoid advancing false reports, I would like to report that I was a sergeant in the US Marine Corps in July 1978. I enlisted in July 1976. Some bloggers have been advancing false reports about my being a captain in the late 70s. I was a captain in the early 90s. I want to ensure that such false reports are corrected.

Commemoration, Celebration or Protest?

2011-01-01T20:34:00.008-05:00

Commemoration, Celebration or Protest?

Is the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War a time to celebrate or to commemorate? For the British, the Fourth of July is no time to celebrate. Americans, however, view the day and the war that brought independence to the United States of America as a time and event to celebrate. For those who argue that the Civil War was not about slavery and elevate secessionist leaders as heroic figures, the Sesquicentennial is understandably a solemn commemoration. Those who resent such an elevation of these Rebel leaders are inclined to protest secessionist commemorations. Both groups are uninformed or ill informed on the activities of America’s African descent freedom fighters before and during the Civil War. Americans thus informed view the war as the event that brought “a new birth of freedom” to our young Republic, and for them the Sesquicentennial is indeed a time to celebrate. Therefore, with an understanding of the activities of these American freedom fighters, we can all find good reason to celebrate the commemorations of the secessions of the states that formed the Confederate States of America.

"Lincoln's Column"
After the election of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States, African American laborers working on the construction of the U.S. Capitol dedicated this column to the president-elect.
Courtesy of the Library of Congress

Just over 150 years ago, Democrats in Ohio sought to nullify the results of the 1860 election because men of African descent, though prohibited by state law from voting, had voted for the Republican ticket. Solomon P. Chase was certainly capable of delivering such votes. Abraham Lincoln won the state’s electoral college by such a small margin that many Democrats believed it was the African American vote that gave the Republicans the state. This historical event was litigated, reported, confessed, ignored by mainstream historians and ultimately debated by those who were taught to ignore it whenever it was brought to their attention. Ignoring the fact that men of African descent voted in Ohio leads to a profound misunderstanding of the political activities, capabilities and intentions of Americans of African descent leading up to the Civil War.

Americans of African descent began preparing for a civil war years before Lincoln was elected. Dr. John S. Rock said on March 5, 1858: “Sooner or later, the clashing of arms will be heard in this country, and the black man’s services will be needed.” Rock declared that free and enslaved persons of African descent would be “wild with the enthusiasm caused by the dawn of the glorious opportunity of being able to strike a genuine blow for freedom.” When South Carolina secessionists called for a convention at Charleston in December 1860, Rock was certain the “clashing of arms” would soon be heard, and he rejoiced as the “glorious opportunity” emerged from secession.

On Christmas Eve, the South Carolina Convention passed a Declaration of Causes for Secession. They stated that the Republican administration that would take helm of the government in March believed “a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.” Determined to keep their profitable domestic institution, South Carolina’s political leaders “declared the Union heretofore between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved.” Quickly the South Carolina state militia moved to seize the federal forts in and around Charleston Harbor.

On the day after Christmas, Major Robert Anderson completed the transfer of his garrison from Fort Moultrie on the shoreline of Charleston Harbor to Fort Sumter in the harbor itself. South Carolina and other Southern states leaning toward secession responded to this movement of federal troops with outrage. President James Buchanan had promised that no such change in position would occur; thus, his Secretary of War John B. Floyd claimed that the move was against orders. Floyd was a secessionist sympathizer; and in a cabinet meeting on December 28, 1860, he almost came to blows with Attorney General Edwin Stanton over more than just the movement of the federal garrison to Fort Sumter. The next day Floyd resigned under accusations that he had sought to arm the secessionists by transferring weapons to Southern arsenals.

Frederick Douglass wrote that Buchanan had fostered “the state of disorder” and lacked the “virtue… to enforce the laws against the slaveholding women-whipping rebels of Charleston.” Douglass opined that the President was bound by oath of office to use force to keep South Carolina in the Union; but, he argued, Buchanan had virtually invited the slaveholding states to secede. Douglass stated that Lincoln would regard South Carolina “as one of the United States, and subject to the ‘Union, the Constitution and the laws.’” He also forecasted that the enslaved population of South Carolina would “prove the most serious check upon disunion.” Douglass viewed secession as an opportunity to end slavery while maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and preserving the Union.

As the New Year of 1861 approached, Americans of African descent, such as Rock and Douglass, rejoiced for two reasons 1) Abraham Lincoln was about to take helm of the government and 2) South Carolina had seceded. They believed that Lincoln’s mission was to free the slaves, that South Carolina had to be conquered if the Union was to be preserved, and that their help would be needed to save the Union. Anxious young freedom fighters across the country waited to hear the “clashing of arms” and grew “wild with the enthusiasm caused by the dawn of the glorious opportunity” to strike for liberty.

One hundred and fifty years ago today, Americans seeking to secure the blessings of liberty for the enslaved were indeed celebrating. It was like celebrating because you got into the sudden death championship game. It was time to celebrate getting the opportunity, but it quickly became time to practice, drill, study and focus. The rebellion was certain to become a war that if the defenders of the U. S. Constitution won, slavery would be abolished. The celebration corresponded with the New Year, and resolutions set the agenda for the year ahead. Celebrate, commemorate, or protest? Protest ignorance by helping the uniformed become informed. With understanding, let us commemorate and celebrate the Sesquicentennial together as citizens of our indivisible Republic. We are commemorating important historical events and celebrating our nation’s “new birth of freedom.”

2010-12-04T15:37:00.001-05:00

The following is a speech I delivered at Gettysburg National Cemetery on Dedication Day for the United States Colored Troops Gravesite Dedication on November 19, 2010:

To Preserve the Union for Liberty

The firm basis on which of our national identity was established was articulated in the Declaration of Independence: the Creator had endowed all men with certain unalienable rights. Thus the conviction in the minds of the people that liberty is a gift from God is the foundation of the house that is our nation. Concerned that the foundation was comprised by slavery, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; and his justice cannot sleep forever.” This founding father, the author of the Declaration of Independence, a slaveholder, feared that the conflict over the disposition of new territories as either slave or free might lead to a civil war. The house for which he had laid the foundation was divided, half slave and half free. If these United States were to remain united, if this Republic was to become a more perfect Union, if we the people were to ensure the domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, then that peculiar American institution, slavery, had to be abolished.

Today we come together to honor those who gave the full measure of their devotion to preserve this Union for Liberty. In April 1861, when open hostilities began in that civil war that Jefferson feared, men of African descent could not legally stand and fight as soldiers in defense of their country, in the defense of their rights as citizens. In July 1862, after what Secretary of State William Seward called “the greatest disasters of the war,” Congress changed the law because the assistance Americans of African descent was needed to be preserve the Union. Nine days after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Militia Act of 1862 into law, James Molson, an Afro-Pennsylvanian, joined the 107^th NY Volunteers. He fought with his American comrades of European descent at Antietam. With his comrades in battle, he fought here at Gettysburg; and he gave his life to preserve the Union for liberty during Sherman’s Atlanta Campaign. Private Molson was like thousands of Americans who have willingly offered their lives that we might be a nation where all are indeed free. The soldier above all citizens is called upon to perform the most Christ-like duties, the soldier is called upon to sacrifice his life for others. Today we honor Americans who sacrificed to save the Union, and who sacrificed to secure what should be, what could be, liberty for all, oh liberty that precious gift from God.

On January 1, 1863, President Lincoln acting on the authority Congress had given him, with a practical military measure to preserve the Union, transformed the Civil War into a war for liberty. Armed with the Emancipation Proclamation, Americans of African descent helped save the Union while bringing about a new birth of freedom in our house, this nation, thus restoring the foundation, the firm conviction in the minds of the people that liberty is a gift from God.

As we go forth from these hollowed grounds, made hollowed by those who sacrificed that we might all be free, let us honor them by working to achieve in this house all that this nation can be, a land where liberty and justice are indeed for all. Do not let their sacrifices be in vain! May their blood stain our memories, and their examples increase our faith that we might march on as faithful Americans dedicated to keeping this Republic one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

After Liberty Was Secured

2010-11-11T09:40:00.006-05:00

After Liberty Was Secured

There was a Grand Review in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. On November 14, 1865, African descent soldiers who had been on occupation duty in the South and who had been preparing to embark on ships for Texas during the Washington Grand Review (May 23 & 24, 1865) marched through the streets of Harrisburg. The keynote was William Howard Day, who, said Major Martin Delany, had been “chosen to arrange the military policy of the under ground railroad relative to the slave enlistment.” The grand marshal of the Grand Review was Thomas Morris Chester, a war correspondent and native of Harrisburg. Chester wrote on the eve of the Washington Grand Review, “That the negro corps, under General Weitzel, has received marching orders is well known throughout their camps, and they are beginning to put on the war-paint with the impression that they are going to Texas. They look forward to the period of embarkation with a great deal of satisfaction [emphasis mine].” According to Chester, these soldiers did not feel slighted by Washington. They were excited about liberating Texas because these freedom fighters knew their work was not done.

In Harrisburg (November 4 – 7, 2010), the state of Pennsylvania celebrated the 145th anniversary of what has often been referred to as the Grand Review of United States Colored Troops. Kicking off the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War with such an event will hopefully excite an examination of African American participation in the Civil War that will explore formerly ignored facts. There are a number of questions we should ask in order to apprehend these facts. Such as what was the true magnitude of their contributions? How important were all their duties to the mission? Why did Benjamin Butler, Thomas Higginson, and Robert Shaw report that African descent soldiers were highly competent in drill soon after being enlisted? Did they have prior military training? If so, who trained them?

I think we can find the answers to these questions if we begin with the following questions: Why was William Howard Day the keynote speaker in Harrisburg? Why did Delany report that Day “was chosen to arrange the military policy of the under ground railroad relative to the slave enlistment”? Why was Thomas Morris Chester the grand marshal? And why did they select Harrisburg to host their grand review? The answers to these questions will lead to a greater understanding of African American activities before, during and after the Civil War. We are not yet close to appreciating the magnitude of their contributions because too many facts are being ignored and too many questions are being left unanswered. The result has been that a story of victims is being told instead of a story of victors. The Harrisburg Grand Review was really about a victory over tyranny achieved by enslaved and/or disenfranchised Americans.

It is commonly believed that United States Colored Troops were slighted by not being included in the Washington Grand Review. Of course, the colored troops that were actually in the Washington parade did not feel slighted. I was quoted in the Harrisburg Patriot-News as saying there were “colored regiments” that marched in the Washington Grand Review, but what I said was that there were “colored troops” that marched, not regiments. Over five hundred names of United States Colored Troops who marched in the Washington Grand Review can be found on the walls of the African American Civil War Memorial. If fact, a pioneer corps comprised of African Americans preceded every division in Sherman’s army in the Washington Grand Review. These African descent soldiers had experienced the hell of combat, marched hundreds of miles and laid hundreds of miles of railroad tracks. Like Seabees and combat engineers, they were important members of the overall military force that claimed a hard fought victory in the war. They marched proudly with their heads high along the avenue in Washington, and Captain Horace Porter reported, they were “conspicuous by their height.”

General Phil Sheridan did not participate in the Washington Grand Review even though the rest of his command did. Sheridan was ordered to Texas to take command of the forces being deployed there. General Sheridan took his orders without complaint because as a soldier he understood that duty called. Men of African descent assigned to the Texas command were no less dignified in their acceptance of their soldierly duties. There was no time for parading in Washington while there was still liberating to be done.

As late as September 1865, Chaplain Garland White of the 28th US Colored Troops wrote from Texas: “Some silly-minded men talk sometimes about home, and I am here to quiet them by assuring them that all will come right in the end, at the same time feeling in my own heart that unless we are made equal before the law we have got no home.” The Grand Review of United States Colored Troops was organized by the Garnet League, which expressly sought equality before the law. In May 1865, surely Chaplain White and the members of such a league would have thought only the “silly-minded men” in their ranks wanted to march in Washington and go home, especially since Texas had not been returned to the Union, thus the enslaved there had not been liberated. Far from being “silly-minded,” African descent freedom fighters were eager to put on their war paint and embark on ships for Texas to complete the work of enforcing the Emancipation Proclamation.

The following is the speech I delivered during the Harrisburg Grand Review (November 6, 2010) entitled “After Liberty Was Secured”:

While reflecting on the contradiction of slavery existing in a nation that claimed liberty as a gift from God as its foundation, Thomas Jefferson (a slaveholder) wrote: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; and his justice cannot sleep forever.” In April 1861, the great houses of the South and the great houses of the North raised sword against sword. The firstborn sons of those great houses were taken in a bloody civil war. After suffering the greatest disasters of the war, Congress gave President Lincoln the authority to arm men of African descent and to declare free slaves in states in rebellion. And a cry for help was issued in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Men of African descent answered that cry for help. They captured Charleston, the Cradle of Secession, and one regiment that trained at Camp William Penn was a part of that liberating army [32nd USCT]. They captured Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, and one regiment that trained at Camp William Penn was a part of that liberating army [22nd USCT]. They stopped Robert E. Lee’s army at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, and five regiments that trained at Camp William Penn were there to witness the surrender of Lee’s army to General Grant [8thUSCT, 41st USCT, 43rd USCT, 45th USCT, and 127th USCT].

And in the early morning of June 15, 1865, fleeing an army of United States Colored Troops, the Confederate governor of Texas, the last state in rebellion, crossed the Rio Grande into Mexico with Confederate Generals John Mcgruder and Kirby Smith as well as 10,000 Confederate soldiers. Six regiments that had been trained at Camp William Penn were there to occupy and return Texas to the Union, thus liberating the enslaved [8thUSCT, 22nd USCT, 41st USCT, 43rd USCT, 45th USCT, and 127th USCT].

After liberty was secured and the last group of slaves freed by the Emancipation Proclamation was liberated, it was now time to celebrate. This was no consolation grand review. Thomas Morris Chester, a native son of Harrisburg, knew this was no consolation grand review. This is not the consolation prize. This is the prize. This is the celebration of victory and liberty for all!”

Why Leading Scholars Make False Reports on USCT Service by Hari Jones

2010-06-19T12:56:00.004-04:00

One of the attractions of our museum is that we direct young scholars to primary sources. Teachers have changed the way they teach the Civil War as a result of the information they have received from our museum. The Delany Group Reading List has been of great benefit to educators and scholars across the country. Though false information and images promoted by the movie Glory have proven market value, it is my opinion that the market will demand more accurate information in the near future. It is easy to demonstrate from primary sources that the work of leading academics have promoted information aligned with the movie in lieu of facts found in primary sources. The works of such scholars have proven market value. Some in the museum business believe that the truth must be compromised in order to attract visitors. But most are simply afraid to disagree with esteem scholars.

Many of the false statements concerning the service of United States Colored Troops (USCT) are results of poor scholarship by leading scholars. Even in a 2008 John Hope Franklin edited work published by Howard University Press (Legacy: Treasures in Black History), we find obviously false statements. For example, the fatalities of the 54^th Massachusetts at Fort Wagner on July 18, 1863 are reported to have been 281, which is eleven more than the regiment lost to disease and combat in two and half years of service. The regiment’s actual fatalities at Fort Wagner were 54. Since most academics support this false report, it is difficult in the current atmosphere to tell the truth. Thus, the truth is currently being suppressed. In order to make the grade, many young scholars are being compelled to ignore the truth and to iterate falsehoods.

Among these often iterated falsehoods are that 1) there were no African American officers in the United States Colored Troops, 2) the 54^th Massachusetts was the first African American regiment in the Civil War, 3) African Americans were denied equal pay (some qualify this by stating that they were denied equal pay for most of the war), 4) President Lincoln did not intend to assign African Americans to combat duty, and 5) Sergeant William Carney was the first African American to receive the Medal of Honor. All of these statements are false. Some require more complex explanations, but the truth can be discovered if one consults the primary sources.

1) There were over one hundred African American officers commissioned in the United States Colored Troops during the Civil War. Their records can be found at the National Archives, and their names are on the Wall of Honor at the African American Civil War Memorial. In the first regiment of African descent mustered into the Union Army in 1862, all of the commissioned officers except for the regimental staff officers were men of African descent.

2) Though the first regiment of African descent organized under the Union umbrella during the Civil War was the 1^st South Carolina Infantry, it was not officially mustered into federal service because General David Hunter had acted illegally when he organized the regiment in the spring of 1862. Thus, the regiment was disbanded that spring after a Congressional Inquiry. After Congress granted President Lincoln the authority to arm men of African descent, General Rufus Saxton was ordered by the War Department to reorganize the regiment on August 25, 1862. It was mustered into the Union Army in January 1863. The 1^st Louisiana Native Guards organized in New Orleans under General Benjamin Butler became the first African descent regiment mustered into the Union Army in September 1862. The 54^th Massachusetts became the ninth regiment of African descent mustered into the Union Army in May 1863.

3) In section 6 of the Militia Act of 1862, which gave President Lincoln the authority to arm men of African descent, Congress mandated that African descent men enlisted under that act be paid only $10.00 regular pay with $3.00 to be taken away for their uniforms. Privates of European descent received $13.50 at that time. When the Bureau of United States Colored Troops was established on May 22, 1863, this section of the Militia Act was interpreted to apply to all men of African descent regardless of rank or whether he was free or enslaved before enlistment. For one year African American enlisted men were denied equal pay, African American commissioned officers received equal pay. On June 15, 1864, President Lincoln signed legislation into law that awarded men of African descent equal pay and arrears. The soldiers who were free men prior of April 1861 were entitled to all of their back pay. Those who were enslaved prior to April 1861 received back pay starting on January 1, 1864. As result of this act of Congress, men of African descent were denied equal pay for only one year, and most received all of their back pay. Therefore, they were not denied equal pay for most of the war, and most who served were not denied equal pay at all. According to the Congressional records, the fact is that their heroism on the battlefield earned them equal pay.

4) Scholars who state that Lincoln did not intend to arm men of African descent or assign them to combat duties often use paragraph six of the Emancipation Proclamation in which the President states that men of African descent will be assigned to “garrison forts” as their evidence. Edna Medford at Howard University has been known to advance this argument. It is important to note that to be assigned to garrison a fort in a combat zone is in fact combat duty. Since President Lincoln did not order his generals to remove African descent soldiers from combat zones, it is ridiculous to conclude that he did not intend to assign them to combat duty. When we combine this fact with the fact that all USCT regiments were combat arms regiments, the statement becomes even more ridiculous.

5) Sergeant William Carney received the Medal of Honor on May 23, 1900. He was the fifty-first African American to receive the Medal of Honor. The first African American to receive the nation’s highest military honor was a sailor by the name of Robert Blake, who received the Medal of Honor in April 1864. Because Carney’s noteworthy act of courage happened before Blake’s, scholars intent on suppressing the truth have argued that Carney was the first to receive the Medal of Honor even though Blake received his medal over thirty-six years before Carney. This justification of false information leads me to suspect that the poor scholarship of many historians is intentional.

In the next five years as primary sources become more accessible to young scholars and curious readers, the poor scholarship of leading scholars will be exposed. Whenever a Civil War scholar states that the movie Glory is accurate or “almost perfectly aligned with the historical evidence,” we can be certain that the scholar making the statement is either ignorant of the historical evidence or chooses to suppress the evidence in order to align his scholarship with what is most marketable. It is our intent to align our scholarship with the truth. We trust that the market will indeed value good scholarship in the near future.

Write Your Comments

2009-08-17T19:13:00.001-04:00

Tell us your comments!

Presidntial Wreath

2009-07-28T14:53:00.002-04:00

Do you think President Obama should not have sent a wreath to the Confederate Memorial?
Did he avoid controversy by sending a wreath to the African American Civil War Memorial?

Tell us about your visit

2009-07-11T14:45:00.001-04:00

Tell Us About Your Visit

Buffalo Soldiers at the Memorial

2008-06-16T17:10:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

Check out the link below for photos of the Buffalo Soldiers event this past memorial day weekend. It sure was an inspired event.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9170526@N07/sets/72157605272531517/show/

A Special thanks to EDJ for providing the photos!