Dead Confederates, A Civil War Era Blog

Peter Phelps Was Not a “Negro in Grey”

Posted in African Americans, Memory by Andy Hall on May 15, 2011

Update, May 19.

After I posted this essay George Purvis, the author of the Negroes in Gray website, contacted the TSL again, asking for clarification on Peter Phelps. This was their reply, which he has also posted to the website:

In consulting with colleagues, it was discovered that the list of soldiers and widows believed to be African-American used to answer your previous question had been revised with the deletion of the name Peter Phelps and the addition of two other names.

We agree with your research that Peter Phelps is White. The additional names on the revised list are:

William A. Green Rejected of Burleson County
Turner Armstrong 38653 of Franklin County

We apologize for the incorrect information.

So we can call the case of Peter Phelps closed, I guess. For my part, I don’t think the TSL staff has anything to apologize for in this case; what they’d sent originally was an informal list, compiled by their staff over a period of time. It is what it is. It’s up to the rest of us to be careful and diligent consumers of historical information.

Recently one of the more outspoken online advocates for black Confederate soldiers (BCS) posted a link to a site that purports to list African Americans who, in one way or another, were part of the Confederate military effort during the Civil War. This person, who dismisses ideas like historical context, analysis and interpretation as “opinion” and “biased agenda,” insists that he’s only interested in “facts,” and has compiled this website in that vein. No interpretation, no discussion, no larger context. Just “facts.”

So I went to the Negroes in Grey website and, clicking on the menu at upper left, selected “The States, The People.” A fly-out menu lists several states, including Texas, so I clicked there. Immediately I was presented a transcript of a letter (presumably to the site’s owner) from the staff of the Texas State Library, explaining that they have no comprehensive means of searching for African Americans in their files. They did, however, explain that the staff there had, over a period of years,  compiled a list of sixteen applications in which either the applicant or his widow was believed by the staff to be African American, and included in the letter their names, counties and pension numbers. One that jumped out at me right away was Peter Phelps of Galveston County (No. 07720). Being a native of Galveston County myself, I determined to find out more about this guy. Who was Peter Phelps, and was he really a “Negro in Grey?”

Well, no. It turns out that Peter Phelps was a white man who married a mixed-race woman after the war, and it takes about two minutes with readily-available, online records to determine that. So what’s up with this “Negro in Grey” business?

Peter Phelps was born c. 1838 to parents who had emigrated from Germany. Contemporary records give conflicting accounts of both his birth date and location. A Confederate pay receipt (Phelps’ CSR, 26.4MB) from August 1863 gives his age as 25, which would place his birth in 1837 or 1838. The same document gives his place of birth as Brazoria County, Texas; most other sources identify him as a Texas native, although the 1910 Census and his mortuary record say he was born in Germany. Similarly, most census records place his birth date around 1840, though the mortuary record recorded his age at death, in January 1920, as 82, which would put his birth in very early 1838, or (more likely) 1837. When he applied for a Confederate pension in 1900, he claimed that he had lived in Galveston County for 44 years, which would mean he moved to the county while still in his teens, in the mid-1850s.

The record becomes clearer in the summer of 1861, when Phelps enlisted at Galveston in Company A of the 2nd Texas Infantry for the duration of the war. The pay receipt, dated two years later, presents a picture of  Phelps as a young man, with dark eyes, light hair, light complexion and standing six-foot-one.


Physical description of Pvt. Peter Phelps, Co. A, 2nd Texas Infantry, from a payroll receipt dated August 1863. Footnote.com.

After training in Galveston and Houston, the 2nd Texas moved to Corinth, Mississippi in early 1862 where it became part of the Confederate Army of the Mississippi under another Texan, Albert Sidney Johnston. At the Battle of Shiloh on April 6, The 2nd Texas was in the thick of the fighting during the Confederate advance that captured of the headquarters of three Federal brigades, encircled Gen. Benjamin M. Prentiss’s division in the Hornet’s Nest, and was finally halted just short of Pittsburgh Landing. Phelp’s service record indicated that he received a slight wound in that action — with no further description — and lost his weapon in the process.

The following day the Confederates lost most of the ground they’d gained on April 6, and retired back to Corinth. Private Phelps was detached from his regiment for a time to Tupelo, where he was assigned as a baker. He rejoined his regiment in time for the Battle of Iuka, Mississippi (September 19, 1862), where Union General Rosecrans turned back a Confederate force under the command of Sterling Price. The following day, Private Phelps was captured by Union forces during the Confederate retreat. Phelps was eventually paroled, but appears to have spend several months in Federal custody, as pay records show him still to have been absent from his regiment in November and December 1862.

In 1863 the 2nd Texas was assigned to the defense of Vicksburg. The regiment, now under the command of Ashbel Smith, was assigned the defense of one of the strong points of the Confederate lines surrounding the city, a crescent-shaped work subsequently known as the Second Texas Lunette. The regiment successfully withstood two Federal assault on the lunette on May 22, but eventually was forced to surrender with the other 18,000 men defending Vicksburg on July 4, 1863.


Phelps’ parole from the Vicksburg campaign. The parole document is almost identical to that of William C. Denman, profiled earlier.

Phelps was paroled from Union custody for a second time on July 7, 1863; he and the rest of the regiment were officially “exchanged” in October. Phelps may have determined at this point that he’d had enough of the war, because when the 2nd Texas was reconstituted in the fall of 1863, Phelps was not present. A notation in his compiled service record says simply, “absent without leave since Nov. 1, 1863,” and on March 26, 1864 he was formally designated as a deserter. Phelps was included in a long list of men whose names were posted in the Houston Telegraph newspaper on April 8, 1864, as deserters, with the warning that they had “forfeited all the privileges of soldiers, and are hereby stricken from the rolls of their respective companies as deserters, and will hereafter be treated as such.” The published notice, signed by the regimental adjutant, also mentioned that “the above list is composed principally of conscripts, but very few old members of the regiment.” Certainly Private Phelps, a soldier since the summer of ’61, wounded at Shiloh, a veteran of the siege of Vicksburg, captured and paroled twice, would be considered in the latter category.

It’s not clear from the record how Private Phelps returned to his regiment, or what discipline he faced when he did. Perhaps his active service record up through the surrender at Vicksburg helped him in this regard. The 2nd Texas was never able to rebuild its ranks to full regimental strength, and remained stationed in Galveston as a defense unit through the end of the war. Peter Phelps’ service record shows that, from the summer of 1864 through the end of the war, he was frequently sent off on detached service with engineering units making repairs to defensive works on the upper Texas coast, or in service with the Texas Marine Department, an organization under command of the army that effectively operated as a coastal naval force, using civilian steamboats and craft impressed into military service.


During the latter part of the war, units of the 2nd Texas were stationed on Matagorda Island, about 120 miles southwest of Galveston, as a defense against a Federal landing. Almost 150 years later, the zig-zag pattern of Confederate trenching on Matagorda Island remains visible in aerial images. The island is now a state park. Image via Google Earth.

During this period, the 2nd Texas was a restless and unhappy unit. Conditions in Galveston and much of Texas deteriorated steadily. In the closing weeks of the war, more than a month after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, many of the men in the 2nd Texas staged a mutiny of sorts. Historian Ed Cotham tells the story in his book, Battle on the Bay:

On May 14, 1865, two to three hundred of Smith’s command in Galveston decided to desert the army en masse. But they had not reckoned on the determination or resourcefulness of their commander. Warned of the escape attempt by other, loyal troops, Colonel Smith [right] met the would-be deserters just after dusk with an armed guard at the mouth of the railroad bridge from Galveston Island to the mainland. He warned them that he would oppose their desertion with every means at his disposal and tried to calm their fears about capture by an overwhelming Union force. The men sheepishly returned to their commands and were back at their duties the next morning, with the exception of certain ringleaders whom Smith arrested as examples.

It’s not known whether Peter Phelps took an active role in this half-hearted attempt at mass desertion. Phelps’ third and final parole as a Confederate prisoner of war came at Galveston on June 27, 1865, ten days after Federal forces occupied that city.

There’s little to document Phelps’ life in the first fifteen years after the end of the war. In 1865 he married a mixed-race woman named Lucinda, almost ten years his senior. (It was this union, apparently, that put Phelps on the list from the Texas State Library.) Lucinda may have already borne him a son, George, and they soon had other children. In the 1870 U.S. Census, they are listed in separate but physically adjacent households on the census taker’s beat: Lucinda, age 38, keeping house and caring for son George, age 6; son Love, 4 and daughter Julia, age 2. Lucinda is noted at this time as being unable to read or write, and she and all three children are described as “mulatto.” Peter, age 30, is listed as being employed as a stock raiser.


Lucinda Phelps (Felps, top) and Peter Phelps (Felps) shown in the 1870 U.S. Census for Precinct 1, Galveston, Texas.

By the time of the 1880 Census, Peter and Lucinda were living about eight miles west of the city, where Peter was farming. Lucinda, her age listed as 50, is shown as keeping house with four children: Love, age 14; Julia, age 12; Peter, age 10; and Rosanna, age 8. As before, Lucinda and the children are designated “mulatto.” Also living with them was 32-year-old black boarder originally from North Carolina, William Rice, who was working as a farmer. Rice and Peter Phelps are shown as being able to read and write, but again Lucinda and the children cannot.


Peter Phelps and family in the 1880 U.S. Census.

By this time, it seems, Peter Phelps was suffering from a significant loss of his eyesight. The cause is unknown, but it was severe enough, and so impaired his ability to work and support Lucinda and their children, that in May 1886 the month Peter turned 46, the county awarded Peter, “a blind man,” a disability pension of $5 per month “to help support himself and his family.” It is not clear how long this pension remained active. The only detailed description of his condition I’ve found was included in his August 1900 application for a Confederate pension from the State of Texas, in which his physician, John B. Haden, attested that Phelps’ “left eye [is] completely totally blind. Right eye vision slight, not sufficient to enable patient to do anything in the way of self sufficient {sic.}.” Peter Phelps did at that time retain sufficient vision to sign the application, although the document itself is completed in another hand.

The 1890 U.S. Census rolls were destroyed in a fire, and lost to researchers. At the time of the 1900 Census Peter and Lucinda, now aged 60 and 70 respectively, were still living out west of town. Living with them was their son Love, age 34, with his wife Mary, age 21, and their daughters Florence, age 3; and Elvie, age 1. Love and Mary had had one other child who was deceased by 1900. Love was employed as a cotton sampler in town. Also living with them was a 10-year-old child, Freddie Cook, who is listed as a “boarder” and attending school. All members of the household in 1900 were listed as “black,” and all adult members are now listed as being able to read and write. Peter Phelps is shown as owning his West Island farm outright, without a mortgage. At the time of the 1900 census, the enumerator recorded a notation that Lucinda had given birth to eleven children during her lifetime, of whom only three were still living in 1900. Peter and Lucinda had at least five children together (George, Love, Julia, Peter and Rosanna); there may have been others who died very young, and given Lucinda’s age at the time of their marriage (around 30), it’s likely that she had been married and borne children before her marriage to Peter.


The Peter Phelps family as appearing in the 1900 U.S. Census.

Three months later the 1900 Storm that swept over the island, marking the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history. It seems certain that little, if anything, could have been left of their farm. Perhaps as the tide and wind rose on Saturday, September 8, the family evacuated into the city. None of the family appears on confirmed lists of the dead from the storm, although it’s possible that one or more family members were lost in the disaster.

Coincidentally, just three weeks before the storm, Peter Phelps had applied for a Confederate veteran’s pension (PDF, 10MB), on the ground of both disability and  indigence. The application describes his physical condition as “Bad. Blind,” with his disability being caused by “old age, the War.” Phelps’ application was approved quickly, on September 27, 1900.


Residence at 1115 32nd Street in Galveston. The 1901-02 city directory shows Peter and Lucinda Phelps’ adult sons, Love and Peter Jr., boarding at this address while working at nearby cotton presses.

Lucinda Phelps died on March 16, 1907. The attending physician, O. C Pabst, listed the cause of death as acute nephritis, and inflammation of the kidneys that is often symptomatic of another disease or infection. She was interred the following day at Lakeview Cemetery, on the outskirts of the city, in section B, Block 6, Lot 4. In the mortuary records, her age was listed as 81.

In October 1904, there was another appeal for charity made on Peter Phelps’ behalf to the County Commissioners’ Court:

Charity Cases:

The following was read:

Galveston, Tex., Oct. 17, 1904. — Honorable County Judge and County Commissioners of Galveston County: Gentlemen — beg to make the following report upon the applications of Josephine Warner and Peter Phelps, for charity, as follows:

In the case of Mrs. Warner, will say that she is an aged, enfeebled woman, practically incapable of earning a living.

Peter Phelps is an old man whose eyesight is very dim. He lives with his son and daughter [in law]. The son is a cotton marker and the daughter is employed in a private family. The surroundings are not indicative of poverty. Very truly yours,

E.. S. Cox,
County Physician.

Commissioner Wolston — Under the circumstances we can not do anything for him. I move that Mrs. Warner be given $5 per month.

Carried.

At the time of the 1910 Census, Peter Phelps is shown as a widower living with his son Love, now aged 42, and his second wife, Ruth, age 41. Love and Ruth had been married 6 years at that time. Love continued in his job as a cotton sampler at one of the cotton presses in town, while Ruth worked as a chambermaid in a private residence.


Love and Ruth Phelps’ listing in the 1910 Census, with his father, Peter, residing with them.

Peter Phelps died on January 13, 1920, at his home. The attending physician, Mary S. Moore, attributed his death to chronic nephritis. On January 17, 1920, the Galveston City Times, carried a brief obituary:

Mr. Peter Phelps, Sr., age 82 years, died January 13, at his late residence, 2807 M. The funeral was held January 14, services [at] 2 p.m. from the above residence, Rev. J. R. M. Lee and Rev. H. M. Williams officiated. Deceased leaves two sons, Love Phillips and Peter B. Phillips, Jr.

(I have not found a case where the elder Phelps used the middle initial B.)

Peter Phelps was buried on January 14 at Lakeview Cemetery in Galveston, near Lucinda. I have not been able to find their graves, although many plots in that section of the cemetery today are unmarked or have damaged or missing stones. The local United Confederate Veterans unit, Magruder Camp 105, requested a state mortuary warrant to help offset the $172 cost of Phelps’ funeral; it appears that such a reimbursement was issued, but limited to $30 allowable under the program.


Part of Section B, Lakeview Cemetery, Galveston, where both Peter and Lucinda Phelps are buried. Their graves are not marked.

Peter Phelps’ life story is interesting enough in its own right. (Most peoples’ are, if you get a chance to dig into them.) But more generally it illustrates the fundamental problem with “list” sites like Negroes in Grey, and Ann DeWitt’s Black Confederate Soldiers. There’s very little in-depth research going on; they simply reflect lots of compiling lists of names from different sources to show, ostensibly, how widespread the black Confederate phenomenon actually was. Readers who are new to the topic, it seems, are expected to be astonished by the sheer numbers involved. It’s a good pitch, and I’m sure many readers are taken in. But as the case of Peter Phelps suggests, there’s often less there than meets the eye. It’s a Jenga tower that, once you start pulling at a few individual blocks, is exposed as a teetering, unstable construct.

Keep in mind, I didn’t go poking around through a bunch of names at Negroes in Grey until I found a single, dubious case to highlight; Peter Phelps was the first record I followed up on, solely because — by coincidence — he’s from my same county. While an n of 1 doesn’t tell us how many of the names on sites like this are misrepresented, it should give those website authors pause that the very first (and to date, only) example checked turned out to be a white Confederate solider, not an African American. What are the odds of that?

Kevin and others have pointed out frequently that, regardless of claims to be motivated to honor these men’s service, there’s virtually no effort spent on actually finding out who these men were or what they did, apart from being able to show them connected in one way or another with the Confederate military. It really does seem that advocates for BCS don’t really give two shits about these men’s stories, so long as they can check them off as one more black Confederate soldier/body servant/teamster/”black Southern loyalist.” In the case of Peter Phelps, two minutes on sites like Ancestry or Footnote would have exposed the error. But that sort of due diligence, it seems, is too distracting, taking time away from the real priority of such sites — making more lists.

Caveat lector, y’all.

_____________

About these ads

137 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Corey Meyer said, on May 15, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    You must be refering to old George Purvis…he is some piece of work!

    • Andy Hall said, on May 16, 2011 at 11:08 am

      The specific individual involved here is less important than the approach, which is common across multiple BCS sites. Cribbing and posting lists of names drawn from other sources doesn’t really provide anything substantive to the discussion, particularly when there’s zero effort made to corroborate or verify the information in question.

      • Corey Meyer said, on May 17, 2011 at 8:52 am

        I agree fully Andy. I have looked over the site and it appears to be a copy of the information found on Ann DeWitt’s Black Confederate Soldier site. Or at least the two have used the same state pension sources to claim BCS’s.

        • Andy Hall said, on May 17, 2011 at 8:56 am

          FWIW, the website author claimed recently not to know of Ann DeWitt’s site, but it’s very much the same approach. Lists of names, lots of names. Might as well be a telephone book for all the depth of research and context that goes into it.

          • George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 9:09 am

            I said I had never heard of DeWitts website and I still haven’t. I do my own work. Re

            “The work goe in it” LOL LOL You have no idea what works goes into ” Negroes.” You are just on the attack because yiou think you have found something. Whoop te do.

            GP

    • George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 9:06 am

      I may be a piece of work, but I haven’t turned my back on my people and call it honoring them!!!

      GP

  2. Margaret D. Blough said, on May 15, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Andy, I think the saying “My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.” applies to the purveyors of this nonsense.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 16, 2011 at 10:50 am

      In another forum, I suggested that this person might want to look at the work of Charles Wesley, Bell Irvin Wiley, Bruce Levine and Stephanie McCurry, who have all written serious, academic works on the role of African Americans’ involvement with the Confederate military, going back almost a hundred years. This person’s response was that he was not familiar with those names, but certainly wouldn’t bother looking them up, because my recommendation of them proves their bias and unreliability.

      So that’s the mindset.

    • George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 9:10 am

      Yep sound like you and Andy all right.

      GP

  3. Marc Ferguson said, on May 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Andy, it’s great that you did take the time to actually tell this man’s, and his family’s, story, thereby actually doing what others claim to do, honor his life through accurately representing it.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 15, 2011 at 1:47 pm

      Marc, thanks. I looked up Phelps because he was local to me, but the more I looked, the more interesting (and more local) his story proved to be.

  4. Kevin said, on May 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Thanks so much for another first-rate piece of research that clearly reflects what is so desperately needed. This is the first that I’ve heard of this website so I spent a few minutes perusing the records. What I don’t understand is why the black Confederate reference is necessary given that just about all of the men listed were clearly slaves. You can find the same thing over at Ann DeWitt’s site, though her definition of a servant encompasses 21st century secretaries. :)

    Thanks again, Andy.

    • George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 9:18 am

      And just how do you Mr. Know It All determine each and every person is a slave? I sit your position that each and very Negro in the South was a slave? There were no free Negroes. Are you trying to tell us that slaves could not be soldiers? And finally Mister snide and cute remark guy who ever said I had to list and prove these men were soldiers? What makes you think I or anyone else has to have to conform to YOUR definition of soldier or servant?. You didn’t prove anything except your biased you are just grabbing the coattails of someone else.

      • Kevin said, on May 18, 2011 at 11:58 am

        I guess this comment is a response to me. No, not every black person in the South was a slave in 1860, but most were. Free blacks lived predominantly in the Upper South.

        You said: “…who ever said I had to list and prove these men were soldiers?” I was simply pointing out that your site is incredibly sloppy in terms of its analysis of individuals. You should consider Andy’s analysis of Peter Phelps as a case study of the kind of research that these men deserve.

        Stop whining and get to work if you are serious.

        • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 12:34 pm

          “No, not every black person in the South was a slave in 1860, but most were.”

          Correct. In all eleven states that formed the Confederacy, free blacks represented only about 3.6% of the total number of African American in the 1860 Census. Only three states — Louisiana, North Carolina and Virginia — had more than 5% of their black population free. (Neither NC nor VA are Deep South states, and both were somewhat ambivalent additions to the Confederacy; Louisiana has a long and complex history almost all its own when it comes to race and slavery.) My own state, which had some of the most restrictive laws applying to free blacks, recorded on 355 free African Americans in the whole state in 1860, less than 2/10ths of 1% of the total black population. Data here:

          http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/start.php?year=V1860

        • George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm

          Good to see you come out from behind the protection of CW memory and engage in a discussion. I for one am really surprised you would do so.

          So then it is your position slaves could not serve in any capacity in the Confederate forces except as a slave. Is that what you are telling me? Are you saying that no free blacks served in the Confederate forces?

          My website is one heck of lot better than yours opinionated biased imitation of research. Besides for one who thinks he is knowledgeable about the WBTS you sure do regulate the posting on your website to the point you only allow few if any opposing views regardless of the facts presented.

          Regardless free blacks Upper South or Lower South doesn’t make a difference, there were was still more free blacks in the Confederate states than the Union.

          Still you didn’t find the error, you had to hitch your wagon to someone’s else’s horse.!!! LOL LOL LOL

          Whining I ain’t whining, heck I enjoy this stuff ask Andy, Corey or Brook Simpson.

          • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 12:54 pm

            “there were was still more free blacks in the Confederate states than the Union”

            Not true. In the 1860 Census, there were more free African Americans in just three Northern states — New York (49,005), Pennsylvania (56,949) and Ohio (36,673) — than in all eleven states that formed the Confederacy (132,760). Please look this stuff up before making claims.

          • Marc Ferguson said, on May 18, 2011 at 1:01 pm

            GP: “So then it is your position slaves could not serve in any capacity in the Confederate forces except as a slave.”

            An interesting statement/question. Slavery is a status, and slaves did many different jobs, based on what work was needed to sustain the armies, which basically boiled down to keeping white soldiers armed and in the field. When the word “serve” is used in connection with slaves, I don’t know whether to cringe or smirk.

          • Kevin said, on May 18, 2011 at 1:38 pm

            I think Andy has clearly demonstrated the limitations of your website. If you spent as much time engaging in personal attack as you do on the content of your site it might be more helpful, but as it stands it does little more than distort the issue at hand.

            The Confederate government and military determined how slaves would be used by the army and the documentation is pretty clear throughout the war. Yes, a few black men passed as white and were able to serve as soldiers. No doubt, the number will never be known, but that should not prevent us from engaging in serious research that explores how the war challenged and shaped the master-slave relationship.

            Finally, I do censor comments that engage in personal attack or steer the conversation in ways that are not helpful.

            • George Purvis said, on May 23, 2011 at 8:44 am

              “Yes, a few black men passed as white and were able to serve as soldiers.”

              That is the dumbest statement that has ever been posted on the web. A 4th grade history teacher would know better.

              “Finally, I do censor comments that engage in personal attack or steer the conversation in ways that are not helpful.”

              Actually that is not true I know plenty of people who have tried to post a civil opposing view on you SLOPPY, OPIONATED blog. Because you didn’t have the facts to disagree you would make some snide comment or let your buddies do so. You blog is filled with cute little snide remarks and what facts are posted have been mostly posted by Andy Hall. A month or so ago I read an exchange between you and an author, who was very civil and tried to present fact. I believe he had finished a book on Black in Confederate service, you and your guests treated him rudely and disrespectful and finally you suggested the subject be dropped.

              NOT ONE FACT FROM YOU.

              Can you present a factual argument without Andy’s help?

              You mentioned standards on these blogs, if there are any they are lower than slug snot.

              GP

              http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

  5. Souscolline said, on May 15, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Well done. A great piece of research.

  6. Martin Husk said, on May 16, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Hey Andy,

    I’m new to this site, but postings like this will keep me coming back. Keep up the great work.

    Martin

    • Andy Hall said, on May 16, 2011 at 11:19 am

      Martin, welcome. I hope you’ll find lots of good stuff here. (And some silly stuff, too.)

  7. Matt McKeon said, on May 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Fascinating story of the Phelps, and great research.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 16, 2011 at 8:55 pm

      Yeah, there are so many things going on with the Phelpses, there are a lot of intriguing angles that are only hinted at in these snapshots. I’m going to see if perhaps there are still descendants locally, though that has been a more difficult research challenge in the past.

  8. George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 9:41 am

    So Andy how do you determine this is the same Peter Phelps who served in Co. A, 2nd Texas Inf.? Is it possible there could have been another Peter Phelps who applied for a pension? Check the noted websites there is no listing of race, unit served or other information related to this pension. You are a Texas resident, order the pension, share with us. It can’t cost you that much. If you can get these records which show this to be the same man, and he is white, then I will make a notation on my website showing he is white.

    Now as I have said I referenced all entries to my website, the Texas pensions are also sourced you noted them in your post. If the good folks in Texas have the records which makes them believe this man was black, mixed race or for some other reason believe he was not white, then I am in no position to dispute their records.

    The letter in it’s entirety was noted, not one name was added or removed or edited in any other matter as all sources should be. The fact that you MAY have found an error is not surprising being that a lot of errors have been made in names, service, units and even battle accounts. Why should I expect pension records to be exact?

    George

    http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

    • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 10:21 am

      So Andy how do you determine this is the same Peter Phelps who served in Co. A, 2nd Texas Inf.? Is it possible there could have been another Peter Phelps who applied for a pension? . . .You are a Texas resident, order the pension, share with us. It can’t cost you that much. If you can get these records which show this to be the same man, and he is white, then I will make a notation on my website showing he is white.

      I got a copy of the pension, scanned it, and put it online. It’s linked in the piece, but here it is again in case you missed it (10MB PDF):

      http://www.maritimetexas.net/Documents/PeterPhelps/PhelpsPension.pdf

      I’m genuinely puzzled, though, why you assume I didn’t get a copy of Phelps’ pension. I even quoted from it. Where did you think those quotes came from? For the record, I requested it by e-mail last Monday and received it Saturday, with an invoice for $1.92. I cannot say enough nice things about the folks at the TSL.

      Phelps’ pension application matches his CSR in detail, right down to his being detached to the Texas Marine Department in the last months of the war. Further, you’ll note, the pension record includes correspondence regarding reimbursement for funeral expenses directed to his son, Love Phelps.

      I had actually done most of the research on Phelps before receiving a copy of the pension record, but held off posting on Phelps until receiving it just to be certain they were, in fact, the same men. I also wanted to wait til the weekend to check in the local archives (not online) for his and Lucinda’s interment record and hopefully locate the graves, in which effort I was unsuccessful.

      If the good folks in Texas have the records which makes them believe this man was black, mixed race or for some other reason believe he was not white, then I am in no position to dispute their records.

      But the “good folks in Texas” didn’t say he was black. Did you miss that? Go back and look at their communication — that list of sixteen names includes pensioners who the archivists believed to have married non-white spouses, which is the case for Peter Phelps. It seems highly probable that at least some of the other 15 names on that list are also white men married to African American or mixed-race women; it concerns me that you didn’t feel any need to follow-up and determine which are which — as I said, it took about two minutes in the case of Peter Phelps find out he was listed as white in multiple censuses — but instead just dropped all the names out there indiscriminately, when the communication from the TSL is quite clear that at least some of these men were white.

      The fact that you MAY have found an error is not surprising being that a lot of errors have been made in names, service, units and even battle accounts. Why should I expect pension records to be exact?

      Phelps’ pension application matches his CSR closely, in detail. There are no conflicts between Phelps’ service record, as detailed in his CSR, and his pension application that I can see.

      But your larger point about the potential for misinformation to show up in pension records is quite correct. That’s also seems to be a change from your earlier position, when you gave me hell because I questioned the reliability of pension records in the case of Thomas Tobe, which made claims for military service that could not be verified through any other source (as Phelps’ can be). Now you are suggesting, that perhaps pension records are not so reliable after all. Good to see we now agree.

      Pension records are an important part of the picture, but the nature of how they were prepared, reviewed and approved — forty, fifty, sixty years after the event — introduce all sorts of potential for errors. We’ve seen in the case of Richard Quarls how a mixup of names resulted in his getting a pension based on the service record of his former master, Pvt. J. Richard Quarles, who’d died during the war. Pension records are part of the picture, but they have to be considered carefully as part of the documentary record. This is part of what historians are talking about when they discuss interpretation and analysis. Primary documents are the lifeblood of writing history, whether it’s the story of a nation of of a single person, but not all primary documents are accurate or reliable.

  9. George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Thanks Andy I found the link.

    Andy this is the exact wording from the letter. As I read it all persons listed are Black.

    “Over the years staff has compiled a list of soldiers and widows believed to be African-American that applied for Confederate pensions:” It says nothing about Phelps (mixed race) wife. I suppose keyword is “believe.”

    Are these pensions applications online, if so where?

    GP

    • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 12:45 pm

      I’ve seen the letter, thanks. (I linked to it, remember?) I do not read its phrasing as an explicit claim that all of the men listed were African American themselves (as opposed to their spouses) but regardless, I’ve laid out the primary source evidence in Peter Phelps’ case. I haven’t come across a single document that indicates Peter Phelps was black or of mixed race, nor do I think the TSL is claiming that he was. If you believe they were, you might want to contact them and ask for clarification on that point.

      The Texas Confederate pension records are not online, but I’ve found ordering hard copies to be easy, fast and inexpensive.

      • George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 1:29 pm

        Nor did I.

        Email has already been sent. Reply will be posted under orginial letter. Will hold off making any changes until then at which time i may link to your pension site.

        GP

  10. George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    Andy, You are correct, there is aboput a 40,000 difference in number for the north. I think I hit a wrong key when I was adding .

    Source:

    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm

  11. George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Marc,

    The question is can and did slaves serve? In today’s military there are many jobs whose purpose is to keep the fighting man in the field, that does not mean these people in these jobs are not serving. Another point by serve I do not simply mean as a fighting combat man but serve (the Confederacy) as in any capacity.

    You see we both agree that the real problem is how a word is used and the amount of hair splitting’ we want to do.

    Negroes in Grey is not just about soldiers in the truest sense of the word but about those Negro men, women and children who served the Confederacy. Note some o9f the entries I have posted for South Carolina at Ft. Sumter. Negro killed, negro wounded. Tell me honestly how can we say these men did not serve? Before I finish there will be many entries of this nature.

    Take a look at Mississippi, note some of the units these cooks served in. Can we honestly say without a doubt they did not engage in combat in some fashion? You see that is the points Leven, Hall and Myers argue.

    I have no problem in being proven wrong as very well may be in the case of Peter Phelps, however I have a good source to back up my information as does Andy. I have no problem in anyone challenging anything posted on Negroes, I do have a problem when it comes to nit picking and hair splitting for no other reason than to prove if a person served or not.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm

      George, it’s not nit-picking to insist on clarifying distinctions between the status and types of service that were made at the time, any more than it is today (using your analogy) to distinguish between a Marine infantryman and a KBR contractor. Even if the latter carries a weapon and engages in combat, they are (legally and otherwise) fundamentally different in the nature of their “service.”

      No one here challenges the claim that thousands, likely tens of thousands, of African Americans labored in support of the Confederate war effort; the Confederacy would not have held on as long as it did without it. Nor does anyone here question that those activities should not be acknowledged.

      But most of the advocacy for “black Southern loyalists” (as one person refers to them) uses the term “served” to gloss over very real and ugly issues of slavery, coercion and agency when it comes to these men. It usually presents them as willing, enthusiastic participants motivated by loyalty and patriotism, when in fact most of them had no say in the matter at all. (White men were conscripted into the army, too, of course, but they still retained basic legal rights and status that even free African Americans did not hold.) I have said before, this new focus on black Confederates is very little more than a new take on the old “faithful slave” meme that has been central to the Lost Cause for over a century, that enslaved men and women were as committed to the Confederate cause and maintaining the status quo ante bellum as their white counterparts.

      It’s fair to note, as well, that Confederate heritage folks routinely do this about individual white Confederates, too, ascribing to them motivations in terms of loyalty, patriotism and honor, when in fact they often don’t actually know.

      So like Marc, I cringe when people simply say that African Americans “served” in the Confederate army. It’s a simple word that masks a much more complex and unpleasant reality.

      • George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm

        Andy,

        Really it is. I have read many post by you and several others who are regular posters to these blogs, so that being the case I have a good feel for the way you lean. First you and others want t o define a “soldier.” Regardless of his assigned task within the unit or the combat experience of that unit you insist this man could not be a soldier. There is no way to prove if this man picked up a weapon or not. You are just assuming because he is a cook he could not have fought. The same assumption goes over to the term “slave.” Because the man was a slave or a teamster if you will, does not mean he did not fight, we are only assuming one way or the other. The fact of the matter is these men or women whichever the case may be was in a Confederate unit or institution, paid, clothed and fed by the Confederate government.

        “But most of the advocacy for “black Southern loyalists” (as one person refers to them) uses the term “served”

        Andy, these negroes were very much loyal. Go to the Negroes Mississippi section, note how long some of these men served.

        “to gloss over very real and ugly issues of slavery, coercion and agency when it comes to these men.”

        The Union did the exact same thing, yet they never offered this slaves a pension. I haven’t any saved websites or notes to prove the prejudiced of the Union Army toward blacks but I am sure you will agree this prejudiced is well documented. To say they had more rights than their counterparts in Gray, is really pushing the envelope a bit. Yes you are right white men were conscripted to serve in both armies.

        “on the old “faithful slave” meme that has been central to the Lost Cause for over a century,”
        You are free to express your opinion, however I try to stay away from opinions and just let the record speak for itself. I try to document what I can with the most accurate info I can put together. To say a negro was not to his master, his home , his state or the Confederacy faithful is pure speculation.

        “So like Marc, I cringe when people simply say that African Americans “served”
        Is there a better term that will accurately describe this service? I think most reasonable people can read the word served and the info that is presented and draw a reasonable conclusion to actual fact.
        Let’s look at this man listed under Mississippi :

        Name: George Nance Roll: 1156
        County: Holmes Series 1201: Confederate Pension Applications
        Apply Date: 1919 Age of Applicant: 73.0
        Date In: 1861 Date Out: 1865 Age In: 15.0
        Wounded/Injured: No Months Served: 48.0
        Assignment: 4th La Inf Battn
        Notes: regt teamster

        With what information that is posted we cannot tell if he killed anyone by any means. We can safely conclude he served, at what age he applied for a pension and how old he was when he enlisted. I know nothing about this unit, but I would guess they did see combat. Look how long he served 4 years. We cannot even tell from the info if a pension was granted or not. What it does it documents service and a means for family member to research his or her ancestor.

        Call it what you want, but it is what it is.

        I won’t speculate how many served, or how many saw combat, one thing I am certain of I will never be able to document each negro man, woman and child who gave something to the Confederacy.

        GP

        • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 7:27 pm

          First you and others want t o define a “soldier.” Regardless of his assigned task within the unit or the combat experience of that unit you insist this man could not be a soldier. There is no way to prove if this man picked up a weapon or not. You are just assuming because he is a cook he could not have fought.

          I don’t know why you’re fixated on whether or not these men ever fired a weapon in combat, because I’ve never used that as a standard. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that this happened from time to time (e.g., Richard Quarls), and don’t doubt it. But that has no bearing on their status as seen by their contemporaries.

          Andy, these negroes [sic.] were very much loyal. Go to the Negroes Mississippi section, note how long some of these men served.

          Most of these men were slaves, George. They had no choice how long they “served.” Length of “service” is only worthwhile as a measure if such service is truly voluntary, and men are free to leave if they choose. That doesn’t really apply to slaves or enlisted soldiers, does it?

          The Union did the exact same thing, yet they never offered this slaves a pension. I haven’t any saved websites or notes to prove the prejudiced of the Union Army toward blacks but I am sure you will agree this prejudiced is well documented. To say they had more rights than their counterparts in Gray, is really pushing the envelope a bit.

          USCTs were not subject to being bought and sold as chattel, as Burrell Comer was. I don’t consider that “pushing the envelope;” there’s an enormous gulf — social and legal — between being enslaved and being exploited.

          Is there a better term that will accurately describe this service?

          “Slaves.”

          That would be an accurate accurate term to describe the vast majority of African Americans who went into the field with the Confederate army. It has the advantage of being the term that was used at the time, as well as one that is very clearly understood by even the most poorly-educated member of the public today. “Conscript Negro” is another accurate and contemporary term for free African Americans impressed into service. Be clear and explicit. My complaint, and I think Marc’s, is that loose terms like “served” conflate a very real distinction, well understood at the time, between them and men formally enlisted.

          Let’s look at this man listed under Mississippi :

          Name: George Nance Roll: 1156
          County: Holmes Series 1201: Confederate Pension Applications
          Apply Date: 1919 Age of Applicant: 73.0
          Date In: 1861 Date Out: 1865 Age In: 15.0
          Wounded/Injured: No Months Served: 48.0
          Assignment: 4th La Inf Battn
          Notes: regt teamster

          This speaks exactly to my larger point in the Peter Phelps post, the need to get beyond names on a list, to actually try to understand these men in all their dimensions. So by all means, let’s look at this man — not an entry in a database, but the man. As you called on me to do with Peter Phelps, I now call on you, show us his full record — his CSR, his complete pension file, census rolls and so on — and we’ll all have a look.

          • George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 9:51 am

            Andy,

            I recall in one of your post your argument was the fact a man was not in a combat unit he could not have served. My position has not changed since day one, if a man served he served, free or slave, enlisted or conscripted, be it proven CSR, pension, roster entry, or any other documentation. It is you group who continues to look for, or fabricate a reason a man, or fabricate woman or child could not have served.

            Again you position is a slave could not serve? What is with that position?

            USCT may not be able to be bought and sold , but they were at times impressed and slaves were forced to work for the Union. Are you really going to tell me that USCT were treated equal to a the white US soldiers? Are you now telling me all blacks who served the Confederate government were forced to do so? I would love to see documentation that proves that. Not just some but all.

            So they were slaves. What exactly does that have to do with stopping a bullet, nursing a wounded man, bringing supplies to the front lines or dying beside your master. I am guessing there is an agenda here. It sorta sound a bit racist from where I sit.

            Nance may not have a CSR or any other documentation that you and I can find. That is what I have been telling you all this time, Just as my Cornelius Oliver. We can safely say this man applied for a pension with the state of Mississippi for service in the 4th La. The name is provided by MDAH. Pension granted or denied at this time we do not know. This is fact. It is sourced. It is on public display giving anyone, who wishes to pursue more information, a starting point to begin research. If he proves to be another Peter Phelps, or just lying about his service, so be it, it does not change he DID apply and was at one time during that period a living, breathing person.

            GP

            • Andy Hall said, on May 19, 2011 at 10:17 am

              I recall in one of your post your argument was the fact a man was not in a combat unit he could not have served.

              I don’t recall ever saying that; if I did, please direct me to it (here or on another blog). My position has always focused on the contemporary (1861-65) designation of soldier, and the propensity of folks like yourself to gloss over what were very real, fundamental distinctions at the time between the status of African American body servants/teamsters/cooks/laborers and men who were formally enlisted in the Confederate army.

              Again, for the eleventy-third time: No one, including me, disagrees with the idea that those African American men “served” in the broadest sense of the term; what I continue to disagree with is the continued, casual conflation of the role they served, with those of enlisted and commissioned soldiers, and the tendency to ascribe all sorts of noble and voluntary motivations to men who actually had very little say in where they went or what they did.

              None of this demeans those African American men, in my view; it’s simply a matter of being candid with both the public and ourselves about the complex nature of their role in the war, and the practical realities of slave labor in the Confederacy.

              You’ve repeatedly accused me and others of making up our own definitions, but we’re not; we’re simply insisting that you and others acknowledge the practical, social and legal status of these men that attained at the time.

              It sorta sound a bit racist from where I sit.

              That’s an ugly insinuation, George. I really don’t think you’d put up with that sort of thing on your own forum, which has a rule stating, “absolutely no insults or name calling allowed. This will result in an immediate ban from our website and/or loss of membership in SHAPE.”

              Nance may not have a CSR or any other documentation that you and I can find. That is what I have been telling you all this time, Just as my Cornelius Oliver. We can safely say this man applied for a pension with the state of Mississippi for service in the 4th La. The name is provided by MDAH. Pension granted or denied at this time we do not know. This is fact. It is sourced. It is on public display giving anyone, who wishes to pursue more information, a starting point to begin research. If he proves to be another Peter Phelps, or just lying about his service, so be it, it does not change he DID apply and was at one time during that period a living, breathing person.

              OK, I’m going to read this response as you declining to provide the primary source material on Nance, that I did for Peter Phelps. That says a lot about our respective approaches to the question.

    • Kevin said, on May 18, 2011 at 3:03 pm

      This is how Ann DeWitt defines a body servant:

      “So what is the definition of a body servant? A body servant is a gentleman’s gentleman. These African-American men, whether freedmen or slaves, dedicated their lives to the service of men who in some form or fashion shaped the United States of America. In 21st century vernacular the role is analogous to a position known as an executive assistant—a position today that requires a college Bachelors Degree or equivalent level experience. Ask any salesman. You cannot secure an appointment with a senior executive without getting approval from his or her executive assistant.”

      These distinctions matter if we are to understand how slaves were classified and treated by the Confederate government and military during the war.

      • George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 6:16 pm

        Again I know nothing of Dewitt. I could care less how you, Dewitt or anyone else defines anything. People 100 years before me set the definations and that is good enough for me.

        Well we know Black Confederates were treated better than the negroes in the segregated Union Army don’t we???? Did someone say USCT — The Crater??????

        GP

        • Kevin said, on May 18, 2011 at 7:53 pm

          You said: “Well we know Black Confederates were treated better than the negroes in the segregated Union Army don’t we???? Did someone say USCT — The Crater??????”

          I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or how it gets us any closer to understanding the place of black southerners in the Confederate army.

          • George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 9:19 am

            Gee anyone else witwho claims a historical back ground knows. Sorry I didn’t mean to post above your knowledge.

            GP

        • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 8:05 pm

          People 100 years before me set the definations and that is good enough for me.

          What is your view of Howell Cobb’s writings on the subject of black Confederate soldiers?

          • George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 9:57 am

            Never read Cobb, why shoul I? I can read. Does he list all the Blacks who served with the CSA government? If not, then his material is useless to me.

            GP

            • Andy Hall said, on May 19, 2011 at 10:24 am

              No, you’re right. Howell Cobb doesn’t list any black Confederates in his writing on the subject.

    • EarthTone said, on May 20, 2011 at 9:40 am

      Negroes in Grey is not just about soldiers in the truest sense of the word but about those Negro men, women and children who served the Confederacy. Note some o9f the entries I have posted for South Carolina at Ft. Sumter. Negro killed, negro wounded. Tell me honestly how can we say these men did not serve?

      Mr Purvis,

      Who did they serve? The Confederate Army or their slavemasters?

      That distinction makes all the difference in the world.

      Warning – I am about to make a comparison to WWII Germany. But I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

      Let me say it again: I am about to make a comparison to WWII Germany. But I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

      OK, One last time for emphasis: I am about to make a comparison to WWII Germany. But I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

      During WWII, the German government used Jews in labor camps. Jews were, in fact, an asset that the Germans used to provide resources to the German war effort.

      Now… could we or would we call the people in those camps… Nazi Jews? Of course not. That would be an insult to them. Those men and women served under coercion of the German state. Failure to give context about the nature of the service makes it impossible to understand what happened.

      Now again: I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

      But using the term “Black Confederates” to describe coloreds who “served” the Confederate military is as careless and reckless as using the term “Nazi Jews” to describe Jews who “served” in labor camps.

      In both cases, the service was based on the coercion of non-citizens. This was not “service”; this was exploited labor in the truest sense of the word.

      For the slaves who “served” I believe it is correct to use the term “Confederate Slaves.” That language makes it clear as to the conditions under which these men “served,” that is, they were acting out of duty and obligation to their masters.

      PS: I find it interesting that Mr Purvis says, concurrently, “don’t you think its possible that some of these slaves saw combat?,” and also, “I’m not saying that they saw combat.” It seems like he’s trying to say is, “Well, I have no evidence that these men were soldiers, but of course, some of them must have fought like soldier.”

      Regardless of any of that, we must understand: simply because a person fires a gun at someone, that doesn’t make them a “soldier.”

      We need to get the fact straight. These Confederate slaves were not an enlisted or conscripted soldier whose duty was to fight and defeat the enemy, or die trying. Their duty was to serve their masters. Some Confederates brought their horses with them to the war. Others brought their slaves. (Some might think this cruel or dehumanizing or demeaning of the slaves to use this kind of talk. But slavery was cruel, dehumanizing and demeaning. We can’t just redact history because it’s unpleasant.)

      Confederate slaves were not soldiers or even “private soldiers” as Mr Purvis puts it. If a person stops a street fight between gang leaders, that doesn’t make him a police officer. If a person saves his neighbors from a fire, that doesn’t make him a fireman. If a taxi drivers helps to deliver a baby, that doesn’t make her an obstetrician. All of those acts are heroic, but that doesn’t make them into the folks who actually have the titles (policeman, fireman, doctor) mentioned.

      There were certainly slaves who engaged in ad hoc act of combat on the battlefield to save themselves or their even their masters. That does not transform them into “black Confederate soldiers.” No more so than self-servingly definitions can transform slaves into soldiers. There are certain rights, duties, and obligations that are specific to being a soldier, and and the term soldier should be used only for those persons to whom those rights, duties, and obligations apply.

      • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2011 at 9:55 am

        EarthTone, thanks for commenting.

        The folks who push this meme don’t think past the vague term “served,” and that’s something that continually trips them up. They’ll simply say, “they served,” as though that explains everything. It’s a noble, inspiring, and patriotic word as they use it, unblemished by ideas like coercion, white supremacy and chattel bondage. For whatever reason, they can not, or will not, think beyond the word “served” to acknowledge the ugly social and legal structure behind it, or the very fundamental difference, recognized at the time, between a white private and his black body servant. It’s much easier, conceptually, to think of all Southerners in that time, white and black, as proud, loyal and brave Southrons united in common cause to defend hearth and home against the wicked Yankee invader, etc. etc. It’s a cartoon.

        One of the images that’s commonly used in association with the BCS meme is one of Lt. John Comer of the 45th Alabama, and his slave servant Burrell, who is dressed in a military-style uniform as well. But read how John Comer spoke of Burrell:

        Burrell is now with the wagon train. I sent him to the rear to wash some clothes. one of our men has just got in from the train [and] says he is well & will come to the Regt. in a few days. If Burrell holds out just full to the end & stick[s] to me as well as he has done heretofore & I come out safe, a mint of money could not buy him. There are very few negroes in the army that are not worth anything to their masters at times like this. Burrell is not afraid of anything. he came to us the other day while we wer on Picket & borrowed some of the boys guns & shot at the Yankees. said he wanted to kill one Yankee before the war ended.

        “A mint of money could not buy him.” As you suggest, John Comer could just as well have been talking about a prized stallion.

        I’ve said it many times, and will continue to: the “black Confederate” meme is nothing more than the old “faithful slave” trope, dressed up in a new butternut uniform. Should men like Burrell be recognized? Of course, absolutely. But it doesn’t do their memories justice to gloss over the hard and ugly realities of their lives, or that they persevered in spite of them. Nor is it particularly valuable to reduce their (often very long) lives to their activities between 1861 and 1865. Indeed, doing so should be considered an insult, rather than an honor.

        • EarthTone said, on May 20, 2011 at 11:48 am

          I think that one difference between the old “faithful slave” narrative, and today’s BCS one, is this: in the past, there was a discrete recognition that slaves served their masters, not the Confederacy or the Confederate army.

          In the early 1920s, the UDC wanted to build a Mammy Monument in Washington, DC – to honor the loyal slave women of the Old South. This was for loyalty to the master (or the mistress)… a loyalty whose existence predated the creation of a separate Confederate state. The point is, it was specifically and explicitly recognized that the slave served his owner.

          The BCS mythologists seem unwilling, or even, unable to understand that slaves served their masters, as opposed to, the Confederacy. And just as fundamentally important, they seem to lack the ability to comprehend how this distinction makes a difference. They just don’t get it.

          Of course, there are fundamental differences between the way slavery is viewed today, versus in the past. In the past, it was still socially acceptable among Southerners to say slavery was a benign institution that was good for whites, blacks, and southern society at large.

          Today, slavery is seen as a pariah. By saying that blacks “served” their masters, it highlights that blacks acted under the force of coercion of an oppressive institution. By calling these men Black Confederates – not Confederate slaves – it removes all the stigma and “baggage.” But back then, they didn’t think it was baggage at all.

          • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2011 at 12:06 pm

            All good points. You wrote:

            The BCS mythologists seem unwilling, or even, unable to understand that slaves served their masters, as opposed to, the Confederacy. And just as fundamentally important, they seem to lack the ability to comprehend how this distinction makes a difference. They just don’t get it.

            It’s a hard thing — and largely subconscious, I think — because for folks who closely self-identify with their Confederate forebeaers, (either actual ancestors or figuratively), the institution of slavery has to be kept at arm’s length. It’s very common for folks to reflexively insist, “my great-granddaddy didn’t own any slaves,” (which may or may not be true) and to go to great rhetorical contortions to push slavery entirely out of the picture. They will condemn it in the abstract, but then also insist that it also has little (or nothing) to do with secession and the war, so let’s talk about how brave and sacrificing those old Rebs were. . . .

            This is also the reason why men like Andrew Chandler and Silas Chandler are invariably described as close friends, as opposed to master and slave, and that Silas “followed” Andrew off to war, a word that suggests both personal loyalty and friendship, and elides the reality that Silas actually had little (or no) choice. I wonder sometimes if the folks who toss off glowing, approving terms like “the Chandler boys” suppose that Andrew Chandler’s mother viewed Andrew and Silas together as “her boys.” (Though she undoubtedly applied that latter term to Silas in a different way.) Did Silas sit at the dinner table with the Chandlers? Was he Andrew’s best man later on?

            While I don’t doubt there were very real bonds between the men, and they shared real, traumatic experiences in the war, there remained a gulf between them socially and legally, that could never be bridged.

        • George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm

          Golly gee Andy , when you can come up with a better word than “served” for service in then I’lll be more than glad to use it.

          “said he wanted to kill one Yankee before the war ended.”

          Sorta says it all don’t ya think.Service verified no problem. Yes he served and would be entitled to a pension if he lived long enough.

          Andy you can SPIN SPIN SPIN and add all the opinions you can think of, it doesn’t alter the service of these folks.

          GP

          • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2011 at 3:01 pm

            Noun, verb, “service.”

            As I say above, your approach is to find something, anything, that to you indicates “service,” and call it done. If that’s what you want to do, that’s your prerogative.

            But it doesn’t really reflect any real understanding on your part of their individual circumstances, or the very real differences at the time (social, cultural, legal) that circumscribed their lives. Or indeed, any interest in these men at all, apart from their “service.” And when anyone tries to point out how limited that approach is, and tries to get you to acknowledge that the situation of these men was actually quite complex, you dismiss that as “bias” or “opinion” or “spin.” You even do that pre-emptively, dismissing authors and sources unread, out-of-hand, because you believe they will challenge your view of these men.

            In the original posting, I said that sites like your are really not interested in these men at all, aside from chalking them up as another name of a black man connected with the Confederacy. You’ve written hundreds of words in this thread since, and nothing you’ve written here causes me to change that assessment, any more than anything I’ve written is likely to change yours.

      • George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm

        Earthtone,

        Gotta love some who doesn’t have the backbone to use their real name. Andy should have told you some horses are easier to get on that to get off.

        Finally someone with the sense to post what is meant by pushing the term slave — or at least try.

        “These Confederate slaves were not an enlisted or conscripted soldier whose duty was to fight and defeat the enemy, or die trying.”

        So just to be clear, a cook, teamster, nurse, musician or a person performing other tasks did not serve because they may not have actually been in combat? Is that your position?

        I am curious just how much research have you done on the subject? Pleas give us a link to your website or your nonbiased book proving your statements

        They could have very well have served both. There is no need to go into a long discussion about the everyday duties or anything like that. The answer is simple by taking care of a Confederate soldier or his equipment, the slave was also supporting to the Confederacy by kee4ping this solder in the field. Some died, some where wounded and some were POWs just the same as nay Confederate soldier. They served whether you like it or not.

        Eh didn’t the Union impress slaves for their work? Did these slaves get recognized for their efforts? Did these slaves work on fortifications and labor to keep the union soldier in the field? Where these slaves contributions to the Union war effort recognized or where these men women and children considered for a pension.

        But didn’t have enough sense to avoid making this Nazi comparison—

        Let’s see the best comparison you can make to the slaves is Nazi Germany. Well that is OK see the Jews were treated a lot different than the slaves. The slaves were not starved, they had hospitals, were clothed, paid and served beside white men engaged in the process of defending their homes from (Yankee) invaders much like the countries of Europe did in defending their homes against the NAZI invaders.

        Now I am about to make more comparisons to Nazi Germany, but I am giving you some facts about the Yankee army that may seem a lot like Nazi Germany but I am only pointing out facts.

        1. The Yankee death camps and deliberate abuse of the Confederate POWS both black and white seem to resemble the death Camps of Nazi Germany.

        2. The murder, rape, burning and thievery of the Yankee army resembles that of Nazi Germany. The scorched earth policy of Sherman and his views toward blacks are more in tune with Nazi Germany.

        3. The Attacks by the Yankee army on the unarmed Native American old men, women and children in the west is resembles German army.

        4. Abe Lincoln’s quotes regarding blacks is more in (goose) step with Nazi gem any than that of Davis, Lee, Jackson, Stephens or other southern major players.

        5. Invasion of a free county, and deliberately starting a war against
        The Confederate States is like Nazi Germany and Japan.

        6. The segregation of the troops is more like Nazi Germany than the Confederacy. This segregation lasted until the late 1940s or 50s.

        7.The racist attitude of the US Army toward blacks is more like Nazi Germany.

        8. is well documented that the USCT were used as cannon fodder by the lily white Union army, can’t say that about the Confederate army.

        9. Last but not least it was the Union army who employed Germans within there ranks. Sorta makes me wonder how many descendants of these German soldiers would later fight against the US or imprison a Jew???

        I think you get the picture. These are just some things I can think of right quick off the top of my head.

        Are you sure you ant to continue on this line????

        The rest of your post is nothing more but wasted space and really serves no purpose other than to express you opinion. As I said pick any man woman or child that is noted serving with a field unit and prove with historical document that it is impossible they could have been in combat. Heck there may have been many a Yankee done in by a frying pan as far as we know. I have posted proof of service now you prove that could not have been engaged in combat. I will accept any record, the unit had never been in combat, the man deserted before the unit saw combat which will only prove that he served, he was sick , injured, on detached duty or nay other reason.

        All of your examples are crap and really have no historical bearing.

        Do your best you are arguing against historical records and documents as we can find them.

        By the way, I never used Black Confederate Soldiers as a cover all in “Negroes in Gray” There are some black enlisted soldiers, there are some noted as slave, there are some simply described as :”Negros” however that are listed they all served and beyond that point we can prove little else unless it is noted or other documents can be found.

        A cute little comment posted by Margaret that was meant for meant but more accurately describes this denier group–

        “Andy, I think the saying “My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.” applies to the purveyors of this nonsense.”

        There is more truth there that one may guess, regardless of the historical proof of service ya’ll are determined to argue against it, dispute the historical record with nothing more than opinions and silly examples and comparisons. Bring something real to the table then you can make your point Just as Andy did with Peter Phelps

        For those folks whose post I do not get to answer today, I’ll do my best to answer Monday. It is generally not policy to take the weekend off.

        GP

        • lunchcountersitin said, on May 20, 2011 at 5:05 pm

          “These Confederate slaves were not an enlisted or conscripted soldier whose duty was to fight and defeat the enemy, or die trying.”

          So just to be clear, a cook, teamster, nurse, musician or a person performing other tasks did not serve because they may not have actually been in combat? Is that your position.

          Your question exactly shows the problem with the current Black Confederate narrative. I specifically asked, “Mr Purvis, Who did they serve? The Confederate Army or their slavemasters?” I then explained why it is essential to understand the difference between serving the Confederacy and serving a slavemaster.

          Then you come back with asking, “are you saying they didn’t serve?” You didn’t answer my question; and I don’t know if you refuse to answer the question or if you’ve just missed the point.

          Just to be clear, there is no doubt that slaves provided labor to the Confederate. None.

          The questions are, did they serve as slaves to their masters; and more specifically, were these slaves black Confederate soldiers (BCS)?

          The argument concerning BCS is easily settled. If you can provide documented cases of where a slave was enlisted or conscripted to serve as a soldier, then I will be happy to join with you in acknowledging such soldiers. We should keep in mind, of course, that at the beginning of the war, the Confederacy limited to enlistment to free white males (see regulation 1399); that this policy was clarified by CSA Sec of War Seddon in November 1863, when he said famously that “Our position with the North and before the world will not allow the employment as armed soldiers of negroes”; and that the policy was not reversed until after a heated debate in the CSA Congress led to GENERAL ORDERS, No. 14, regarding Confederate Law Authorizing the Enlistment of Black Soldiers. GO 14 was not issued until March 23, 1865; and as we know, Lee surrendered at Appomattox on April 9, 1865.

          ****

          Eh didn’t the Union impress slaves for their work? Did these slaves get recognized for their efforts? Did these slaves work on fortifications and labor to keep the union soldier in the field?

          Contrabands were indeed used to provide labor to the Union. The Confiscation Acts of 1862 and the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 conferred upon these men and women the status of free people. These persons were not soldiers, and are not recognized as such.

          Again: If your goal is to simply show that the Confederacy, or the Union, for that matter, benefitted from the use of black labor, fine. There is no controversy about this fact. As long as we are clear that in the case of the Confederacy, these people were not soldiers; And that, by January 1863 at least, those who provided labor to the Union were free.
          ****

          Let’s see the best comparison you can make to the slaves is Nazi Germany. Well that is OK see the Jews were treated a lot different than the slaves. The slaves were not starved, they had hospitals, were clothed, paid and served beside white men engaged in the process of defending their homes from (Yankee) invaders much like the countries of Europe did in defending their homes against the NAZI invaders.

          As I said in my post several times, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

          My point is that saying calling the slaves “Black Confederates” is as reckless and careless as calling Jews in labor camps “Nazi Jews.” None of your comments addresses the issue of the careless and reckless use of language.
          ****

          8. is well documented that the USCT were used as cannon fodder by the lily white Union army, can’t say that about the Confederate army.

          If there were USCT in the Union army, then how could the Union army have been lily white? And also, what is your proof that the USCT were “used as cannon fodder”?
          ****

          The rest of your post is nothing more but wasted space and really serves no purpose other than to express you opinion. As I said pick any man woman or child that is noted serving with a field unit and prove with historical document that it is impossible they could have been in combat.

          As stated in my post, “There were certainly slaves who engaged in ad hoc act of combat on the battlefield to save themselves or their even their masters. That does not transform them into “black Confederate soldiers.” No more so than self-servingly definitions can transform slaves into soldiers. There are certain rights, duties, and obligations that are specific to being a soldier, and and the term soldier should be used only for those persons to whom those rights, duties, and obligations apply.”

          My post has more information about how I came to make that statement.
          ****

          I must come back to the point that it is essential that we provide context about the “service” that was provided by black Southerners.

          Your site make it seem as if there is a controversy about whether blacks provided labor to the Confederacy. If so, then that must be considered a straw man argument. There’s no dispute that tens of thousands of slaves and freemen provided such support. And there’s no dispute that some number of these men picked up a musket and fired at the Union army.

          The controversy is about the nature of their service, and you conveniently sidestep that issue.

          Again: we know that Jews serving in Labor camps does not make them “Nazi Jews”; in the same fashion, slaves providing labor or support does not make them “black Confederates.” My point is not to equate Confederates with Germans; rather, it is to say that it’s absolutely essential to understand the context in which “service” was “provided” (or coerced).

          If I recall – I’ve been searching for this, and can’t find it – sometime during the war, a group of black soldiers and their white officers were captured by the Confederate army, and put to labor. Let’s assume this happened; could we not call those officers “white Union Confederates?”… after all, they were serving the Confederate army… right?

          - Alan Skerrett

          • George Purvis said, on May 23, 2011 at 8:28 am

            Alan,

            Why don’t you take the time to read the website instead of spending so much time trying to out wit me? here is the link. As for your opinions, I really don’t care what you think, you stupid examples and feeble attempts to out wit me do not impress me at all. Bring forward some historical records that prove these men women and children DIDN”T serve.

            What you are arguing against 100 year old records. GOT IT?????

            I mean if you really want to argue and try to out fox anyone why don’t you try the folks who drew up the records and approved the pensions in the first place? And speaking of pensions, the Yankees didn’t give any to their slaves did they? I don’t think so.

            GP

            http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

            • lunchcountersitin said, on May 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm

              Mr Purvis,

              I don’t know what you want. You made a very long post, that contained a number of points. All i did was respond them. And as you requested, I added some sources. And as you requested, I gave you my name.

              And what did I get for my time and effort?

              Instead of providing responses to my post, you
              (a) say that I am trying to “outwit” you… I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean;
              (b) you provide no answer at all my comments; and yet
              (c) you make a demand that I answer your question, even as you make no response to my questions or comments.

              Whatever. I see where this is going. I will provide another response further below, then I’m done.

              • George Purvis said, on May 25, 2011 at 9:01 am

                “If there were USCT in the Union army, then how could the Union army have been lily white? And also, what is your proof that the USCT were “used as cannon fodder”?

                Alan see you come back with a comment such as the above. you are simply trying to out wit me. WIf you have an historical knowledge at all you know the USCT and The Union army were separated.

                Cannon fodder. Your right I have no first sources of my own in that regard, just stuff I have read on the web. You must be right since the high number of deaths due to battle among the USCT is place at only about 3,000.
                “There were 2,751 USCT combat casualties during the war, and 68,178 losses from all causes.”
                Source:
                3. Cornish, The Sable Arm, p. 288; McPherson, The Negro’s Civil War, p. 237.

                See you did out wit me!!!

                Get it yet?

        • Corey Meyer said, on May 20, 2011 at 6:52 pm

          George,

          Try clicking on his name, EarthTone…and you should be magically taken to his fantastic blog…

          • Corey Meyer said, on May 20, 2011 at 6:59 pm

            Oh BTW George,

            If you took any time at all to read EarthTone’s blog you would notice there is a link at the top of the page…”About” and you will easily discover EarthTone’s real name…it is not that difficult and you make more out of it than it is worth.

          • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2011 at 7:12 pm

            You crazy kids and your computer machines!

          • George Purvis said, on May 23, 2011 at 8:15 am

            And I should read someones blog whose best examples are comparisons to Nazi Germany??? I hadly think so.

            • EarthTone said, on May 23, 2011 at 7:04 pm

              Wait a minute. I said this in my post:

              Warning – I am about to make a comparison to WWII Germany. But I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

              Let me say it again: I am about to make a comparison to WWII Germany. But I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

              OK, One last time for emphasis: I am about to make a comparison to WWII Germany. But I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

              During WWII, the German government used Jews in labor camps. Jews were, in fact, an asset that the Germans used to provide resources to the German war effort.

              Now… could we or would we call the people in those camps… Nazi Jews? Of course not. That would be an insult to them. Those men and women served under coercion of the German state. Failure to give context about the nature of the service makes it impossible to understand what happened.

              Now again: I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CONFEDERACY WAS IN ANY WAY AS BAD AS WWII GERMANY.

              I don’t think I could be any clearer on that.

              I am the first to acknowledge that there is a risk of any reference to Nazi Germany because people will say, “But wait – You’re saying ______ are as bad as Nazis.”

              That’s why i went out of my way to say i wasn’t doing that.

              I wish there was a better analogy to use, to explain the ridiculousness of the term “Black Confederate” or “Black Confederate Soldier” when applied to slaves, besides showing the ridiculousness of calling Jews in labor camps “Nazi Jews.”

              As I said earlier – I believe the proper term to use is Confederate Slaves. Since these men were in fact slaves in service of the Confederacy, I don’t see why the term shouldn’t be used. One thing we know: Confederate regulations prevented the enlistment of slaves as soldiers until March 1865 – so they shouldn’t be called soldiers.

              • George Purvis said, on May 25, 2011 at 8:27 am

                You wait a minute. You were the one who opened the subject of Nazi Germany. YOU YOU YOU not one other person. Don’t really care how many warning you put up the intent was still there. Nice try but the raping, burning murder and theft that went on in the South by the Yankee army and the war crimes committed by this army is more akin to Nazi Germany than anything of the army of the South ever did!!! This is not even starting to list the abuses of the constitution by Lincoln

                When a person goes the Nazi route, it is a sure indication to their knowledge of history. You and your street corner history will not pass the test sorry. It is no wonder you think blacks, free or slave, young or old. male and female. could not have free and willingly supported the Confederacy.

                Have a Dixie Day.

                George Purvis

                http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

              • Andy Hall said, on May 25, 2011 at 4:50 pm

                Chill, George. The other commenter may have been the first of use the N-word, but with about a thousand disclaimers first — that’s the only reason I let it go. Now you’re the one coming across as more unhinged. No more references to Nazis, by anyone.

                I would also strongly encourage you, when you read a comment you disagree with, not to shoot off a reply immediately. You (and anyone else) can probably make your case better by thinking a response through carefully. There’s nothing particularly useful to be gained merely by being fast in this venue.

                This is not even starting to list the abuses of the constitution by Lincoln

                Wrong thread. If you want to go there, go elsewhere.

    • Richard said, on May 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm

      Dude, what part of SLAVE dont you understand. If I held your mother, father, sister, wife or children in bondage you would do whatever was necessary. Its shameful to suggest otherwise.

  12. George Purvis said, on May 18, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Kevin,

    Andy NOT you found one error in 2,000 plus entries. YOU DIDN’T LOL LOL LOL How many times I gotta say it before it sinks in?

    Yeah steer — I have visited you website you steer away from anyone who has an opposing view or have facts YOU cannot counter with facts.

    Like I said snide and cute remarks are your forte for the most part Andy ha;; has carried you fact wise. That has got to put your panties in a wad!!! LOL LOL LOL

    • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 2:39 pm

      “Andy NOT you found one error in 2,000 plus entries.”

      More accurate to say I found one error in the one record I took a closer look at.

    • Kevin said, on May 18, 2011 at 3:01 pm

      Well, whatever makes you feel better George. LOL

      I have found this site to be an incredible resource in my own work on this subject and along with others I thank Andy for taking the time to do what the majority of web authors such as yourself have failed to do.

      Once again, all I ask of you is that you try to meet the standards that Andy has set on this site. After all, this is what serious historians do.

      • George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 9:16 am

        hey we all apppreciate Andy’s work. No problem in making an honest mistake by using a first source that for whatever reason made a mistake. Better to make a mistake using sources than to be like you — make a fool of himself with his opinions.

        There are standards on this site— what are you doing here?????

        GP

  13. Matt McKeon said, on May 18, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Andy,
    Your research into Phelps, his military service, and postwar life was illuminating. Maybe because you were interested in Phelps as a human being, and wanted to know more about him. He’s not just a means to an end.

    Jesus, you’ve got a lot of patience.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm

      Thanks, Matt. While researching Phelps I latched onto another soldier’s story that I hope to tell soon.

    • corkingiron said, on May 18, 2011 at 8:48 pm

      Oh, ditto this. I can’t imagine possessing it, but ya gotta admire Andy’s ability to bite his tongue and stick with the evidence. I sure hope a “Dead Confederates” book comes out of all of this.

  14. George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 10:17 am

    Andy,
    Oh BTW good job. You find one (sourced) error and you bring in the whole crew, to rake me over the coals. Heck Leven even peeped out to my surprise.

    Anyway just want to let you know I have not heard from TSI at this time, it may take a week or longer.

    GP

    • Andy Hall said, on May 19, 2011 at 10:23 am

      I didn’t “bring in” anybody, George. They read my blog, and chose to comment, just as you do. I don’t generally discuss my postings ahead of time with anyone else, and did not in this case.

      And again, the one error I found was in the one service record I looked into. There are fifteen other names on that list from the TSL; how many of them are also of white soldiers? As someone committed to “facts” and “truth,” as you’ve often reminded us, determining that seems like something you’d make a priority.

      • George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 11:30 am

        I do find it somewhat of a coincidence that all show up at once, and as I said even Leven. Oh well I believe you.

        I don’t care if all are white. I got first hand sourced information from what is supposed to be a legitimated source. If the folks at TSL made a huge mistake, the error is on them not me.

        Did I post something that is not true? Did I post something that is not fact? Point it out I would love to see it. See Andy it is a fact that TSL sent me a list with Peter Phelps name on it, I didn’t edit that letter in any sort of manner. The complete list is posted for anyone wanting to dig deeper which you did. You found an error by TSL. Good job. Negroes in Gray did what it is supposed to, provide a name, provide a source.

        You are more than welcome to research any and all entries on “Negroes.” Each and every one of them has a source and none goes to DeWitt work. Find a mistake, notify me and I will make proper notation and if possible as in the case of TSL, I will notify them of the error. I WILL NOT make any changes just because of the term slave or any of these silly reasons your group promotes.

        You should have caught on by now we are using the CWS&S as a sort of model for our website. As I pointed out to Corey Meyers and you would have known this had the both of you taken time to do a little reading —

        (From Our Homepage)
        “We here at SHAPE fully understand and acknowledge that we do not have all the information or answers, nor do we expect everyone to agree with our positions, regardless of what information is provided. However we do invite you to submit factual information to support your argument so that we all may learn together.”

        • Andy Hall said, on May 19, 2011 at 11:56 am

          I do find it somewhat of a coincidence that all show up at once, and as I said even Leven [sic.].

          Not especially. I think they both subscribe to the blog, so whenever I post something new they get it immediately in their e-mail. It’s neither magic, nor a Yankee conspiracy. You surely cannot be surprised that, given the subject of the post, they chose to comment upon it.

          I know that there’s a sense that Corey, Kevin and I are in cahoots, and coordinate our postings. I see why someone might suspect that, since we three agree generally on certain topics, and frequently one of us will take the other’s posting on a particular subject, and do his own, related post. That’s the nature of blogging. But in fact, neither Corey nor Kevin knew anything about this, or that I was looking into the Phelps case, before it popped up in their e-mail, along with the e-mail of everyone else who subscribes to this blog.

          George, you’ve repeatedly and consistently misspelled Kevin’s surname. Corey’s too, above. Is that intentional, or merely careless?

          • George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 12:56 pm

            “But in fact, neither Corey nor Kevin knew anything about this, or that I was looking into the Phelps case, before it popped up in their e-mail, along with the e-mail of everyone else who subscribes to this blog.”

            Thank you for verifying my point

            GP

        • Marc Ferguson said, on May 19, 2011 at 1:57 pm

          GP: “I don’t care if all are white.”

          So much for your interest in historical fact and accuracy.

          • George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 12:45 pm

            So much for you understanding what has been posted.

            GP

          • Marc Ferguson said, on May 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm

            GP: “I don’t care if all are white.”

            So much for your interest in historical fact and accuracy.

            Reply
            George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 12:45 pm
            So much for you understanding what has been posted.
            ————-

            Mr. Purvis,
            You have made it clear that you have no intention to do anything but post lists of names that you can somehow link with the fraudulent notion of “black Confederates,” and you continue to insist that describing what slaves did as “serve” the Confederacy does not do violence to the term and the grotesque realities behind what it meant to be a slave. Furthermore, you clearly state that you don’t care if every name you post in your lists of possible “black Confederates” is actually a white man. I can only take this to mean that you have no real interest in historical accuracy, telling the real stories of these men, or understanding the actual history of the Civil War. These names, for you, whether the real men were black or white, are clearly nothing more than a means to an end, which is to give a misleading portrayal of the experiences of Southern blacks, free and enslaved, during the War.

  15. George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Andy to answer your post above– You made that statement about Thomas Tombs, Tomes (?) on either this blog or Corey’s.

    See that is the point I have been trying to get across to you folks, you come up with so many reason why a person could not have served it is unbelievable. I just hit on a few I could remember. Instead of

    Now it seems you are desperately using the title of “slave” as proof these folks could not have served. Why??? Records are clear about service, so why do you push the issue so? What is really your agenda. Are you trying to preserve the idea “it was all about slavery” and each and very entry I make chips away at that idea??? I honestly think that is the case.

    GP

    • Andy Hall said, on May 19, 2011 at 11:19 am

      You made that statement about Thomas Tombs, Tomes (?) on either this blog or Corey’s.

      That would be Thomas Tobe, and again, give a link to the actual comment, please, because I think you’re mischaracterizing (or perhaps misunderstanding) what I wrote. I can’t really respond in detail to your memory of something I wrote, somewhere, sometime.

      you come up with so many reason why a person could not have served it is unbelievable. . . Now it seems you are desperately using the title of “slave” as proof these folks could not have served.

      I don’t think you understand my position, at all. Why are you so opposed, it seems, to the use of the word “slave” in this context? In the vast majority of cases, it’s an absolutely correct descriptor. I “push the issue so” specifically because folks like yourself ignore or gloss over a distinction that was fundamental to the way these men were employed and viewed by the Confederacy, and in doing so present to the public a distorted and ultimately false picture of the conflict.

      • George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 1:39 pm

        If you think I am gonna waste my time over something so minor that you do know you said you are dead wrong. Anyone else can chase that dog if they want to.

        I am not opposed to the word slave. You can find it used in Negroes. I am wondering why you keep promoting the idea that slaves could not or did not serve. I haven’t ignored anything I post the records and references you argue with the records, while trying to prove they were only “slaves.”We all can read and when that staus is recorded we can all understand the meaning. It has nothing to do with anyone glossing over anything or failing to note a correct entry.

        So again my question is why is it so important to make mention they were slaves?

        Now really we can say the same thing about the USCT they were only escaped salves because slaves were not free until —– by the ———. So if a slave cannot serve in the Confederacy, how can a slave serve in the USCT?

        GP

  16. George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 11:33 am

    About Cobb–

    Then perhaps you will be kind enough to send me a list of names with all information and page numbers??? You can contact me through the SHAPE website.

    GP

  17. Corey Meyer said, on May 19, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    George,

    Why is it that you want to place the burden of proof on Andy, Kevin and I? We have shown over and over again…with big hat tips to Andy and his excellent research…that those you claim to be black soldiers were indeed not soldiers but slaves/servants. They should be honored as such, but not as soldiers.

    Since you have made the claim that these men are soldiers based on the information you got from the various archives…even the ones making claims that the information maybe difficult to decide if they are black…it is your burden to prove they are what you say they are. If I were doing this…as I have on my blog…and I preface it by saying that these men have not been determined to be, but it is a list of possibles..it would be my responsibility to varify my claims.

    Therefore, I am asking the same of you…it is only intellectually honest to do so. But I really doubt you are concerned about intellectual honesty.

    • George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      Corey,

      OK we will just deal with the men listed as servants and nothing else. You ask why do I ask you to prove–

      We (all of us involved in this discussion) find records of a man, woman, child serving in a Confederate unit or assignment. One of the first things you fellows say is he could not have served because he is a slave, cook, teamster or any other assignment simply based on his status. Look at the entries, I am talking about actually slowing down and read something don’t be in such a hurry to post. Now pick any man or woman that is listed in the field with any Confederate unit, can we say without a doubt this person was not engaged in combat? Can we say with absolute certainty that this man never killed a Yankee? Can we say this person in no way, shape or form was not engaged in combat. I don’t think so. I make no claims that he or she did. I simply post the record without drawing a conclusion one way or the other. My position is they served period.

      I have read all the spins you fellows have put on why they can’t serve. It makes my head hurt.

      Go down this page Andy almost says for certain no slaves could have served. Why??? because they were slaves period. If that is the case then prove every bit of documentation stating blacks, slaves or what ever you may want to call them, is incorrect. Don’t post opinion, don’t post quotes from Cobb when records point in another direction. If you ask me to believe Cobb as absolute proof, then I must ask you to believe Steiner and Douglas.

      You have your work cut out, better get busy.

      GP

      PS

      Don’t be in a hurry to respond, I won’t be back until late Friday.

  18. George Purvis said, on May 19, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Andy,

    An email from TSI correcting their mistake has been received and posted to Texas page. They also corrected 2 more names. Good job, nice catch. This is what it is all about.

    From The States, The People page:

    “Expect errors and duplications, they do happen. If you see something that your suspect is an error and needs correcting, please bring it to our attention”

    GP

    • Andy Hall said, on May 19, 2011 at 2:08 pm

      Thanks for posting that. It’s interesting that the folks at TSL are under the impression that the revised information on Peter Phelps is based on your research. I wonder who gave them that idea. ;-)

      More seriously, I want to acknowledge the work that the harried and underpaid folks at the TSL do. I really don’t think they have anything to apologize for in this case; it’s up to us to be careful and diligent consumers of historical information.

      • Kevin said, on May 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm

        You are absolutely right, Andy. The original note by TSL made it clear that it was an informal list. It is up to those who choose to showcase names to make sure that the proper analysis has been conducted. That clearly did not happen and based on Mr. Purvis’s comments on this thread it is not clear that he understands the first thing about historical research.

      • George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm

        —– Original Message —–
        From: George Purvis
        To: Archives Info
        Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:57 PM
        Subject: Peter Phelps

        Sir or Madam,

        Research by someone other than myself indicates that Peter Phelps of Galveston, pension number 07720 is not a Negro but in fact White. I also viewed this pension and Compiled Service Record (Co. A, 2nd Texas) and came to the same conclusion. Would you please be kind enough to explain to me how he is determined to be Black?

        Thank you,

        George Purvis

        You can also write TSL and ask them for a copy of the email

        Man you are wrong again.

      • George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 3:33 pm

        Not a problem. More than likely it woukld be a good idea to post to “Negroes” also.

        GP

  19. EarthTone said, on May 20, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Andy,

    Thanks for your work. Your ability to do ad hoc research on these supposed cases of BCS is a wonder to behold. Your work is not just informational, it’s enlightening: it shows the issues involved in gaining a true understanding of the historical record.

    Meanwhile, this is from the “Negros in Gray” site:

    This is the defination SHAPE subscribes to—–
    THE PRIVATE SOLDIER.

    In the fullest sense, any man in the military service who receives pay, whether sworn in or not, is a soldier, because he is subject to military law. Under this general head, laborers, teamsters, sutlers, chaplains, &c. are soldiers. In a more limited sense, a private soldier is a man enlisted in the military service to serve in the cavalry, artillery, or infantry. He is said to be enlisted when he has been examined, his duties of obedience explained to him, and after he has taken the prescribed oath.

    The interesting thing is, slaves were not paid for their service. Their masters were paid. Of course slaves were given food/provisions… but so were horses and mules. By Purvis’ own definition, the slaves were not “private soldiers”!!! I wonder if he realizes the case he’s made against himself.

    • George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 2:55 pm

      Where have I said anything about anyone, not evryone mind you not being a private soldier?

      “slaves were not paid for their service. Their masters were paid.” Really is that an absolute fact? Better do more reading it is posted to negroes in Gray.

      GP

  20. George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    A twofer:

    Andy,
    They did get notifications and I did not. Heck I would have been more civil in my responses– at least in some cases. I would have been darn civil had you posted this to negroes and notified me. I found out through Corey.

    Again it is posted several times on the Negroes website, if there is an error post the facts, we would appreciate it.

    Marc,

    Nowhere in that letter does it say I or any member of SHAPE compiled the names in the list. The letter clearly states it was compiled by the staff of TSL. The fact that one person is white or all are white means little since this is not SHAPE’s research and that fact is duly noted in the letter. The difference is if I had taken the list and posted it as if it was my own.

    The fact Andy found an error is great.

    As for the “Negroes” website. Truth be known it matters little to me what you and Leaven think of it. I told you what I was using as a pattern. Must have been over your head. I am listing what I can find when I can find it. If you have objections or suggestions about the way I building this website, then I invite you to join SHAPE, become the a researcher and start Monday as our newest member. There is plenty of work to be done. If you do not wish to join SHAPE then I invite you to post any and all information regarding the names listed you may find. That doesn’t mean I will remove their name from any listing for the simple reason that is changing first source.

    The offer is open to anyone and everyone.

    GP

    • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm

      They did get notifications and I did not.

      They subscribe to this blog by e-mail. It’s not a plot, George. If you want to subscribe yourself, there’s a link on the right-hand side of the page. It’s not rocket science.

      I would have been darn civil had you posted this to negroes and notified me.

      You (and everyone else here) have an obligation to be civil, regardless.

      As I’ve noted before, you have no qualms discussing me and other bloggers (e.g., Brooks) you disagree with on your site, without notifying us. Once again, you seem to have one standard of how you deal with others, and a higher standard of how you think others should behave towards you.

      Truth be known it matters little to me what you and Leaven think of it.

      I’m a little tired of your consistent inability to spell Kevin’s last name. You’re so consistent in it, it’s hard for me to believe it’s unintentional. Get it right, or don’t comment. It’s five letters, George, it’s not that hard.

      • George Purvis said, on May 23, 2011 at 8:04 am

        Well that is what I am talking about. I thought I also subscribed????

        I am sure I notified you and Simpson. At any rate I have no need to attempt to build a blog, be righ, or prove a point by attacking someone else. SHAPE websites are designed to be infiormative not to attack everyone who I disgaree with.

        Anytime you or anyone else can prove a point posted on a SHAPE website wrong, you are more than welcome to do so. Just bring facts not opinions.

        GP

        http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

  21. George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Andy do you really believe this???

    “George may be unaware that many USCTs had never been slaves.”

    • Andy Hall said, on May 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm

      Believe which? That many USCTs had never been slaves (i.e., were born free), or that you might not be aware of that? Your statement,

      Now really we can say the same thing about the USCT they were only escaped salves [sic.] because slaves were not free until —– by the ———.

      seems quite clear, and makes the latter at least a possibility. If that’s not the case, all I can suggest is that you chose your words more precisely.

  22. George Purvis said, on May 20, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Earthtone this one is for you.

    Go to Negroes In Gray website and look up Alabama pensions.

    Note the entries for slaves — note their owners, tasks, performed, under which department (of what Government?), for what period, pay etc etc.

    Yo9u should notice that some owners are not noted as serving at all. So to say the slaves were serving their master, to keep him in the field is not accurate.

    It is accurate to note the fact that these folks were allowed to apply for a pension while the slaves of the United States government did not.

    Do you agree the US government used slaves or not?

    • lunchcountersitin said, on May 23, 2011 at 4:48 pm

      Please watch this space in the next few days. You will be interested in the response to this post.

      But help me with one thing. During what period are you saying that the US government used slaves?

      • BorderRuffian said, on May 24, 2011 at 7:27 am

        The United States government used slaves during the Civil War. And I suppose they used them in various capacities from the time of the Revolutionary War to when slavery was abolished. Is this stunning news?

        Shall we call them “Union Slaves?”

      • George Purvis said, on May 25, 2011 at 8:40 am

        Since we are talking about the WBTS let’s just keep it in that period.
        And lunch counter sit in, you might just want to check out some of the prejudice displayed toward the Blacks by the North. Can we say Northern Black codes???

        Gee I quiver to think of the response I might get. Open up some good subjects I have one or two sources to use.

        GP

        http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

  23. vaproto said, on May 21, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Mr. Purvis made an error. How odd for a human being when we’re all so perfect! Did Frederick Douglass also err when he exclaimed that he saw blacks in Confederate uniforms and armed when he watched the ramparts of the enemy’s position? Why then is it so hard to believe that blacks fought for the Confederacy? Black plantation (and slave) owners in Louisiana formed military units to fight off the Yankees knowing that if they did not they would find themselves reduced to poverty. Yankees were known to be thieves even before the war began and especially in the cotton states, the “soldiers” and their “officers” spent more time stealing cotton than “preserving the Union.”

    However, let us be honest. Mr. Purvis ADMITTED his error which now, supposedly, has made anything and everything he says of no account whatsoever! Yet, how many Lincoln acolytes lie and lie repeatedly about St. Abraham even in the face of overwhelming proof against all that they proclaim? And when they are caught flat-footed by evidence that CANNOT be refuted, their response is to call those who brought the facts to the fore names – much as that which happened to Mr. Purvis.

    Frankly, I do not care one whit if blacks fought for the Confederacy. I have enough evidence to know that they were hated by the vast majority of whites in the Union while there was a far different relationship between the races in the South that was only ruined by Reconstruction (what a misnomer!). Yes, certainly there was “hierarchy” in the South, but not the kind of hostility that had some of Sherman’s “soldiers” rape and murder a black fifteen year old in Columbia, South Carolina. After gang-raping her, they drowned her in a mud puddle. Ah, yes! The glorious, egalitarian Union! Not!

    And, no, I’m not going to run around finding sources for those who wouldn’t believe it if I presented their own unimpeachable records. It’s there in MANY sources, civilian and military, but the problem with so many devotees of the Union is that if it isn’t what they want to hear, then the person bringing it to the fore is “a piece of work” and all their efforts to validate their points are as useful as feathers in a firestorm.

    I don’t believe that the South’s right to secede or the efforts of her people to defend themselves from a wicked tyrant and his complicit toadies is in any way validated by how many or how few blacks fought for EITHER side. Frankly, it is a non-issue since the attitude of whites to blacks in the 19th century was certainly not limited to Dixie. Anyone thinking that to be the case is in need of a dose of historical reality and not the Marxist revisionism being fobbed off on the credulous and delusional today.

    Finally, it is interesting and amusing to note that the well intentioned but self-righteous idiots in the North who ran to do Lincoln’s bidding after he diddled them into ignoring the Constitution and believing his propaganda about preserving the Union and defending the flag (notice, he said nothing about “freeing the slaves” until he wished to influence foreign opinion about his illegal and unjust war against the South) brought about the ruin of the sovereignty of their OWN states and made all Americans – North AND South – subjects under federal tyranny! If it weren’t so damned tragic, it would be very satisfying to see the winners lose in the end.

    • Andy Hall said, on May 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm

      Mr. Purvis made an error. How odd for a human being when we’re all so perfect!

      Lord knows, I’m not perfect. I’ve made mistakes on this blog before, and when they were brought to my attention I corrected them promptly, with public credit to the person who pointed it out. I didn’t get in an online pissing match trying to defend my error, or (as George did) deny I had erred in the first place.

      However, let us be honest. Mr. Purvis ADMITTED his error.

      Not really. He eventually acknowledged the information he’d posted was incorrect, but I don’t see where he admitted he himself had made a mistake, or erred. Quite the contrary, in fact; he’s been adamant that he takes no personal responsibility if the information he’s posted from another source turns out to be incorrect. Not his job.

      I’m glad George corrected his site. But if he’d done a little due diligence with the information he got from the TSL, he wouldn’t have been in the position to have to make a correction in the first place. And given that the one pension record I looked at proved to be hinky, I do think it’s reasonable to ask how many other listings on his site are similarly flawed. Now that he’s updated his list of Texas Confederate pensioners, do you suppose he’s back-checking those? I doubt it.

      Did Frederick Douglass also err when he exclaimed that he saw blacks in Confederate uniforms and armed when he watched the ramparts of the enemy’s position?

      Frederick Douglass never claimed to have witnessed that. If you’re going to ask a rhetorical question, please at least get its premise right.

      Thanks also for sharing your perspective on the racism/hypocrisy/crimes of Lincoln and the Union. Unfortunately, none of that has anything to do with the subject of this thread. It’s deflection, changing the subject, simple as that.

      • Mike Musick said, on May 22, 2011 at 5:51 am

        The most extensive listing of African Americans employed by the Confederate States army of which I am aware is in Record Group 109, the [U.S.] War Department Collection of Confederate Records, in the National Archives, in Washington, DC. This consists of a single entry, titled Slave Rolls, and comprises dozens of boxes containing hundreds of monthly rolls showing thousands of names. These original rolls are on a printed form, designed during the war by the Confederate authorities, which was filled in by hand to show the names of the slaves employed, the names of their owners, the amount paid to the owners, and the dates, places, and officers in charge. The majority are for persons used in constructing fortifications. By far the greatest number of the slave names are given names only, such as “Elisha,” “Nate,” “William,” or “Robert;” surnames are rare. The U.S. War Department indexed these rolls, in a separate series, but only by name of owner. These records have never been microfilmed, and are not presently available online.

        • George Purvis said, on May 23, 2011 at 7:28 am

          “I am aware is in Record Group 109, the [U.S.] War Department Collection of Confederate Records”

          Kinda says it all doesn’t it????

          GP

      • George Purvis said, on May 23, 2011 at 7:53 am

        Well golly gee Andy, I did make the correction and did so without attacking anyone or any website and did I not give credit to you. Can’t you remember what is posted or you just so interested in trying to be right you are blinded to what is in black and white on this board?

        When it comes to pissing I am one of the best, look how many people on this board I have pissed off!!!!!

        I didn’t make a mistake. TSL did they are the ones who compiled the information and sent it to me. I never saw the list before I received it in an email. You don’t like it tough. You want to blame me for what TSL sent out fine, pile it on I am a big boy and I can handle it, but anyone can clearly see where the error first started. Fact of the matter is in order to keep your trashy blog going you have to keep up the blame game.

        If you feel there are more errors feel free to check, I have invited you to do so many times. While you are at this massive correction of history, may I also suggest you take on the CWS&S and get them to make corrections to their listing.

        Heck I claim the Douglass defense, I never said I had did a background on any of these men who TSL claimed were Black Confederates.

        Have you ever studied the Ors just to see if Douglass might have known what he was talking about? Is anything of that nature noted anywhere? Let’s say Douglass’s information was in fact second hand, did it have any factual backing? It would be my suggestion you do a little reading on the subject.
        Changing the subject– is that anything like Earthtone’s Nazi references? You seemed to piss your pants over his post? This is the very best answer you could reply with? Trashy!!! It as simple as that.

        http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

  24. UnGrounded said, on May 22, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Andy. I’m over here visiting from TNC’s place. Man, you are doing some heavy lifting! My hat’s off to you. There is a huge divide between the actual practice of history that you carry out and the fantasy world of those who endeavor to confirm their own versions of received wisdom through the accumulation of misinterpreted trivia.

    • Marc Ferguson said, on May 22, 2011 at 9:53 pm

      “accumulation of misinterpreted trivia.”

      Perfect description!
      :)

      • George Purvis said, on May 23, 2011 at 7:31 am

        Marc,
        Are you up and ready to do some real research? Remember I invited you to join SHAPE? After all you are interested in historical accuracy.

        GP

        • BorderRuffian said, on May 23, 2011 at 8:36 am

          Wow…a lot of space devoted to one supposed BC that turned out to be white.

          But, you know, if race is not stated in their service record it’s not easy to ID a BC.

          “John Smith”…”John Williams”…”Joseph White”…”Thomas Jones”…forget it…

          “Uriah Abercrombie”…”Ezekiel Hemelschmidt”…”Clem Cadiddlehopper”…yeah, try those.

    • George Purvis said, on May 23, 2011 at 7:58 am

      “trivia.”

      Sorta reminds me of some of the trash posted here.

      Here is the link, http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2 you are welcome to prove it is no more than trivia.

  25. BorderRuffian said, on May 23, 2011 at 8:43 am

    Most of the responders here would prefer that this issue be placed in neat little boxes.

    It was “all this” or “all that.”

    Sorry, it ain’t gonna be like that. It’s a lot more complex…

  26. BorderRuffian said, on May 23, 2011 at 8:52 am

    What Ed* or Fred** said…what Howell Cobb said.
    None of this is important. It doesn’t prove anything.

    *Bearss
    **Douglass

  27. Andy Hall said, on May 23, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Lots of new comments over the last few hours, some substantive, some not. I’m hella busy at the office and don’t have time to respond individually ATM, so I’m going to ask folks to just chill for a little while and not shoot off replies with the first thing that pops into their head — something I myself have been guilty of from time to time.

    So everybody dial it back a bit, okay? There are a couple of new comments I want to reply to in detail, so let’s all just take it slow today.

  28. George Purvis said, on May 25, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    “Chill, George. The other commenter may have been the first of use the N-word, but you’re coming across as more unhinged. No more references to Nazis, by anyone.”

    Chill nothing. Your partner opened the subject you had nothing to say about it except giving him a blessing for such good comments. When I point out facts you tell me to chill what gives??? I know you don’t have to answer. As long as you think you side is winning then all is fair, when it looks like I may get the upper hand you want to hog tie me. Unhinged, buddy you haven’t even come close to seeing unhinged. And let’s do be fair YOU are the one who lost control of YOUR blog. LOL LOL

    “This is not even starting to list the abuses of the constitution by Lincoln
    Wrong thread. If you want to go there, go elsewhere.”

    I really do not need to say more about Lincoln. Those with open minds will want to know and begin to look for facts. They will find out for themselves. We can thank Earthtone and Lunch Counter Sit In for the opening..

    Why should I go elsewhere else? This is where the attacks on me, Blacks and the Confederacy are at. Besides that I am having to much fun to go elsewhere. Shoot Brook Simpson wasn’t this much fun. The best thing you can do is call down your dogs and get them back on a subject. In doing so they won’t be giving me more ammunition in which to slap their heads around a bit. You should tell them arguing against records that are a 100+ years old is a situation in which neither YOU OR THEM CAN WIN!!!!!!

    Tell you what, because I like you, I’ll make one more post tomorrow and you and your boys will have the run of this rat hole blog. Of course you can always ban me if that is what it takes to make you right. Another option is to close down all responses like Simpson did. LOL LOL LOL

    GP

    http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

  29. Matt McKeon said, on May 25, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    george,

    If you re read Andy’s post, you’ll see him using research to really discover something about Phelps’ life. It’s a free lesson in how to do historical research. He’s been unfailingly courteous as well. It’s an opportunity.

  30. Neil Hamilton said, on May 26, 2011 at 3:54 am

    Mr. Purvis,

    Was Peter Phelps a Black Confederate soldier?

    Neil

  31. George Purvis said, on May 26, 2011 at 8:53 am

    Well Andy I said I was gonna make one post and then leave. I had no idea we would get some brilliant post such as those from Matt and Neil. At any rate anyone with any backbone and wants to make a factual comment to me knows where to find me.

    Anyway here we go, just a couple of truisms:

    You found one error — good job. (Sent to us.)

    Is it gonna be the only error– more than likely not.

    Will this stop SHAPE from building this website– Absolutely not.

    Now you can have your trashy blog back.

    See what a nice guy I am ??

    George Purvis

    http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2

  32. Neil Hamilton said, on May 28, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    Mr. Purvis,

    The multiple replies, snide remarks, and other “chaff” became somewhat difficult to filter through. Just thought I would ask and cut to the chase on what your own research had shown you.

    Sorry to ask for clarification and to force you to conclude you were being “set-up” with anything.

    Enjoy your future endeavors on your site and wading through your 2,000 listings.

    Neil


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 353 other followers

%d bloggers like this: