Searching for Black Confederates by Kevin Levin

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
In a chapter that discusses and attempts to analyze the photo of Silas and Andrew Chandler, you seriously don't think an account given by one of those two men is relevant, and at least rates a mention?
I was serious. There are sufficient self-serving slave owner narratives already published and insufficient reason to repeat.
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
580
Reaction score
742
I was serious. There are sufficient self-serving slave owner narratives already published and insufficient reason to repeat.
I have to disagree, if a man is being discussed and we can add his own words to that discussion, even if it's a secondhand source, that is relevant. That should be included in the discussion.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I have to disagree, if a man is being discussed and we can add his own words to that discussion, even if it's a secondhand source, that is relevant. That should be included in the discussion.
We need all the really bad stuff too like slave owners engendering children to sell. That is very relevant and should be included in the discussion.
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
580
Reaction score
742
We need all the really bad stuff too like slave owners engendering children to sell. That is very relevant and should be included in the discussion.
If that happened and it's a relevant part of Andrew and Silas Chandler's story, then include it. If it's not, I don't see your point.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
IMHO Levin should have included some accounting entries from slave traders and breeders along with graphic descriptions of slave executions and punishments. Maybe something about dog breeding and cooking grits too.

Now...that would cause a serious and not to mention vicious argument. :eek:
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
If that happened and it's a relevant part of Andrew and Silas Chandler's story, then include it. If it's not, I don't see your point.
Exactly! What you suggest is not relevant to Levin's book except in your opinion.
 

Tom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
561
I was serious. There are sufficient self-serving slave owner narratives already published and insufficient reason to repeat.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Second hand accounts and made-up stuff are the fashion these days.
We don't need to see no 1912 transcript.

sch.jpg
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I am convinced it will be persuasive. Abbeville always...is. :rolleyes:
My point is that there is a place to write an article to rebut Levin rather than trying to impress us with opinions.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
I thought that was the whole point of discussion forums/message boards. You know... for folks to give their opinions on various subjects. o_O
If all you have is opinions, I suppose we can spare the electrons. OTOH, folks are sparing cash to buy Levin's books.
 

Tom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
561
Levin book: "The Cross of Honor, introduced in 1900 by the UDC, was intended for Confederate soldiers who performed acts of valor on the battlefield."

Apparently it was for anyone who performed honorable service. It took me about 10 minutes to find these-

RobertsPres.png
RobinsonJosh.jpg

BoyingtonGW.jpg
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Levin book: "The Cross of Honor, introduced in 1900 by the UDC, was intended for Confederate soldiers who performed acts of valor on the battlefield."

Apparently it was for anyone who performed honorable service. It took me about 10 minutes to find these-

View attachment 626
View attachment 627

View attachment 628
The CSA government did not issue it nor authorized it. It is a commemorative medal issued by a women's social group. To connect the men in the newspaper articles to the UDC cross, one would have to have the original paperwork, otherwise, it could have been borrowed, bought or perhaps a copy. If we assume for example that cooks were on the muster-roll, then a noncombatant cook could receive a UDC cross.
 

Tom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
561
The CSA government did not issue it nor authorized it.
Obviously. It was established ca. 1900.
It is a commemorative medal issued by a women's social group.
Not just any social group.

To connect the men in the newspaper articles to the UDC cross, one would have to have the original paperwork
You do. I don't.
otherwise, it could have been borrowed, bought or perhaps a copy.
No, the UDC was fairly strict about these medals. There were even state laws about who could wear one.

If we assume for example that cooks were on the muster-roll, then a noncombatant cook could receive a UDC cross.
How do you know this?
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Obviously. It was established ca. 1900.

Not just any social group.


You do. I don't.

No, the UDC was fairly strict about these medals. There were even state laws about who could wear one.

How do you know this?
Thanks for your opinions.
 
Top