DE FACTO PROPAGANDA

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

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

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?

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.”

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

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

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.