More on Bayonets … On My Bookshelves

I see where my reposting a picture that appeared on my Facebook page has aroused a good deal of discussion. Maybe these pictures will add to the discussion:

My Zouave knows how to wield the steel.

These guys have a point to make, too.

And here members of the 5th and 146th New York target a certain Yankee third baseman.

39 thoughts on “More on Bayonets … On My Bookshelves

    • SF Walker October 24, 2012 / 5:03 pm

      No kidding! I’ve never seen that one before–it’s certainly more “to the point” than the typical regimentals carried by the white units!

  1. Brad October 24, 2012 / 12:28 pm

    Odd, but that Yankee player doesn’t look like Eric Chavez.

    Do you also collect Civil War toy soldiers/military miniatures?

      • Brad October 25, 2012 / 5:30 am

        Cool, so do I. Those look like they may be Conte. Have you ever checked out First Legion,

        They are Russian style figures but not at the Russian prices. They have a line of Civil War figures, centering on Gettysburg. The sculpting and painting is superb.

        There is also Britains, which has a big line of Civil War figures, as well as Frontline.

  2. John Foskett October 24, 2012 / 12:47 pm

    In photo no. 3, I think they’re only after the phone numbers he stuffed in his hip pocket.

  3. Michael C. Lucas October 24, 2012 / 2:29 pm

    One gets a definite bias in these pics. . . maybe even revealing a little sadistic fetish. . .

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 24, 2012 / 5:24 pm

      Always good to hear from you and to see how your mind works.

      And while we have your attention: would you like to tell us all whether you endorse the views of your fellow officers of the SHPG as expressed in this thread? Or how about the comment of your SHPG comrade, John C. Hall, Jr., of Dublin, Georgia, who offered this observation?

      Let’s see who the real coward is, Michael. You have a choice between denouncing the racism of your associates at the SHPG (and maybe even quitting in protest, because you’ve told us you are such a tolerant sort of fellow) or of remaining silent (and whining here). Let’s see how you deal with this.

      • Neil Hamilton October 24, 2012 / 9:49 pm

        Professor Simpson,

        It seems more apparent that it is Mr. Lucas that displays a “fetish.” The drive-by kind, because he knows he cannot linger in a factual environment.


      • Michael C. Lucas October 25, 2012 / 4:59 am

        I detest ignorance especially racial overtones, I have stated so on more than one occasion, especially regarding quotes by John C. Hall, Pat Hines and anyone else. I will treat you no differently, as you give no quarter. Kevin Levin and the league of hypocrisy here however are no different in presenting the same sense of bigotry and ignorance that you protest others do. As demonstrated by Brooks posting, as though there isn’t anything intentionally racist about showing U.S.C.T.(African American) troops chasing a Confederate flag bearer? The SHPG post you referred to was removed from the SHPG page. Levin states “Anyone with even a little knowledge of American history knows the dark story of lynching and organized violence against African Americans during the 1950s and 60s – often in full view of a Confederate flag.” Can you answer how many more thousands of black, white, red, yellow, people do you think were hung and other actions of organized violence, in the full view of a United States flag? How many Indians were slaughtered in the presence of a U.S. flag? How many African slaves during their passage here, were thrown overboard from ships under a U.S. flag? How many Confederates were hung, shot, and purposely allowed to die in Northern prisons from the elements, by starvation, and disease because of maltreatment and U.S. approved policies. How about the facts you negate to consider of the hypocrisy and humility of moments of human fallacy, in full view of a United States flag, including your own.

        • Brooks D. Simpson October 25, 2012 / 7:27 am

          So, let’s see … showing African American Union soldiers is racist? Wouldn’t denying their service be just as racist, according to your logic?

          This is especially surprising, considering that you claim that you are so tolerant … and then listed your friends by race. By your own reasoning, that would make you a racist.

          “Negate to consider”? My, but you sure know how to craft a turn of phrase.

          Thanks for illuminating your “sentiments,” as Mr. Gallo is fond of saying.

          • Michael C. Lucas October 25, 2012 / 7:54 am

            Maybe for you, since you and your pards so blatantly deny African American Confederate soldiers for their service. The illumination of your animosity, bigotry remains evident. You may think your being cute but your prejudice period is your fallacy. Its inflammatory, its divisive, and its dishonorable for all considered.

          • Brooks D. Simpson October 25, 2012 / 8:11 am

            The heavy breathing some of you hear comes from Matt Gallman, who’s been waiting for a mention of his favorite subject.

            I can’t wait for Michael to remind us of the service of that famed regiment of black cooks we’ve heard so much about. No one denies that in the last months of the war, the Confederate government attempted to raise black units. No one argues that they were very successful in that effort.

            Michael offers no response to his need to categorize his friends by race. Whether that makes him a racist by his own standards is a question he’d prefer not to answer.

          • John Foskett October 25, 2012 / 8:37 am

            One of these days, one of the proponents of this “Black Confederate” frolic will actually give us photos, official records, daybook entries, contemporaneous correspondence, an order of battle – something besides unsubstantiated assertion – which prove the claim. Or not. Meanwhile, Cleburne wasted his time and effort pushing something which he didn’t realize was unnecessary. You’d think Pat would have stayed on top of the composition of units in his own division. And the CSA powers opposed something which they’d already put in place. Who knew.

          • Brooks D. Simpson October 25, 2012 / 8:53 am

            Shhhh. It’s a short drive from Mobile to Pensacola, where Matt Gallman’s secret love lives.

          • SF Walker October 26, 2012 / 3:56 am

            Very good points, John–and of course Cleburne’s efforts in this department basically wrecked his career He was passed over for promotion four times by men with less seniority and tactical ability than himself for merely suggesting the idea of black troops to Davis.

          • Rob Baker October 26, 2012 / 9:46 am

            Although I do think that his proposal contributed to it, I think there are other reasons/causes for Cleburne’s stagnation in rank. Keep in mind he was a foreigner (Irish).

          • SF Walker October 26, 2012 / 5:32 pm

            Now I do agree with that–although within the CS army at least, Cleburne was a highly-respected foreigner. Davis and the CS War Department apparently had a different opinion of him. Considering these were the same people who kept Bragg in command for so long (they preferred to sack his detractors in the army instead) this is not too surprising.

          • Michael C. Lucas October 25, 2012 / 5:09 pm

            No Brooks, the historical record which you continue to distort by your revisionism, details there were very few designated units of African American Confederate soldiers, until 1865. The record conclusively shows there were thousands of African Americans integrated within practically every brigade of the Confederate forces, performing various task including individuals taking up arms in combat roles against the Union forces throughout the war. They served not only as cooks, but teamsters, farriers, blacksmiths, carpenters, leather workers, wheel wrights, metal workers, laborers, artillerymen, couriers, Infantry, and cavalrymen, performing a great variety of tasks. They deserved and have earned the sobriquet as “soldiers,” That only scratches the surface, not to mention the thousands of free blacks, and millions more who were slaves, who sustained their communities, farms and plantations. Every slave may have desired freedom, but not every slave took advantage of the war to seek it. Though many slaves sought freedom and served in the Union Army, many more remained in the Confederacy for various reasons. Whether for lack of motivation, fear of reprisal, or a even a very real sense of honor and loyalty to the families and communities they knew, who did not run off. But by all means please continue to avoid the elephant of truth in the room.

            Your racists propaganda and accusations are clearly presented, I need not comment further on them, except for your desire to continue to make ignorant remarks. Which you insist upon by your “ad hominem tu quoque” as Baker suggest. Which Baker and the rest of the curs here do who share your diatribe for your defenses.

          • Brooks D. Simpson October 25, 2012 / 7:12 pm

            I’m sure you believe this. Maybe saying it makes you feel good. But they weren’t soldiers, and nothing you say will make them so.

            “Which Baker and the rest of the curs here do who share your diatribe for your defenses.” Your ability to maim American English knows no bounds.

          • Michael C. Lucas October 25, 2012 / 8:37 pm

            The moment that two opposing forces of combatants meet in battle, attacking each other, they are soldiers.

          • Brooks D. Simpson October 25, 2012 / 8:43 pm

            Unfortunately, you don’t get to define “soldier” for the Confederate States of America. It defined the term. Your presentism is showing.

          • Michael C. Lucas October 25, 2012 / 11:45 pm

            No thats not presentism thats commonsense something else your sorely lacking.

          • Brooks D. Simpson October 25, 2012 / 11:56 pm

            Let’s try to understand the difference between “you’re” and “your,” okay? Just try. We’ll work on the rest later.

          • Jimmy Dick October 26, 2012 / 7:54 pm

            The record is pretty clear in that it does not show that. The record is also clear that after the war the blacks who did serve the Confederacy in their role as manservants, farriers, cooks, orderlies, corpsmen, etc. were denied pensions for decades because the Confederates did not consider them to be soldiers.

        • Al Mackey October 25, 2012 / 8:58 am

          “though there isn’t anything intentionally racist about showing U.S.C.T.(African American) troops chasing a Confederate flag bearer?”

          They were US troops in the Civil War. Who else would they be chasing?

          “Can you answer how many more thousands of black, white, red, yellow, people do you think were hung and other actions of organized violence, in the full view of a United States flag?”
          Can you? It’s a red herring anyway, but feel free to post the evidence.

          “How many Confederates were hung, shot, and purposely allowed to die in Northern prisons from the elements, by starvation, and disease because of maltreatment and U.S. approved policies.”

          How many? Please provide the citations to the primary source evidence of purposeful murder of confederate prisoners, and not being shot for crossing the dead line, since that was known to everyone as the consequence of crossing the dead line.

          • Brooks D. Simpson October 25, 2012 / 9:06 am

            Oh oh. Michael’s been asked to provide evidence … which in the mind of Mr. Gallo is a no-no, because that mocks people who hold “southern sentiments.” Apparently we should make special allowances for them.

  4. SF Walker October 24, 2012 / 5:00 pm

    Nice miniatures! The 5th NYVI, Duryea’s Zouaves, is one of my favorite units–Zouave uniforms are cool! I think the 5th was later merged with the 146th. The Confederate in the first picture is nicely detailed, too; I like the torn trousers, blanket roll, and civilian sack coat. I have a 9th NY (Hawkins’ Zouaves) figure–their uniform was similar to the 5th’s. I can tell you from experience that the sash and gaiters are a pain in the neck to put on!

    • Brooks D. Simpson October 24, 2012 / 5:28 pm

      The three-year men (replacements) from the 5th joined the 146th in May 1863.

      • SF Walker October 26, 2012 / 5:50 pm

        Thanks for the info, Brooks–I’d probably read that somewhere, but had since forgotten. I remember reading in your earlier blog that one of your ancestors was in the 5th during the Antietam campaign–not too far from where your wife’s forebear was fighting—in a Georgia regiment!

  5. rcocean October 24, 2012 / 6:42 pm

    Run, Johnny Reb, Run !

  6. Charles Lovejoy October 24, 2012 / 8:35 pm

    Hey the Rebs are loosing in both pics, that’s not fair.. should be 50/50 🙂 I don’t mean to brag but I have 1946 Marx Civil War playset

  7. 1864bummer October 25, 2012 / 7:37 am

    I am new to the blogging community and Crossroads was one of the leading sites that convinced me to create my own home at Civil War Bummer. To put it bluntly and I don’t consider myself a liberal, some of the alternative sites “blow my mind”. I just can’t fathom their position on a dream world of self indulgence and ridicules myths regarding people, places and events.
    My formative years were filled with folks like these and I discovered many years ago how destructive these self centered lost souls can be.


  8. rcocean October 26, 2012 / 7:55 pm

    Cleburne wasn’t promoted to Corps Commander in 1864 over Hood, S.D. Lee, AP Stewart or Cheatham for seven reasons. 1) He wasn’t a West Point grad. 2) He was from Arkansas – not Tennessee. 3) He didn’t have political connections or personally known to Jefferson Davis 4) He got mixed up in the whole 1863 Bragg vs. his Generals controversy 5) His slave proposal 6) He was junior to Cheatham and 7) Wasn’t a friend of Hood

    • SF Walker October 27, 2012 / 8:13 am

      I concur. Those are all valid points.

  9. John November 12, 2012 / 7:00 am

    Nice figures, but…. Be it in paintings or figures, the modern artists and sculptors keep churning out an overabundance of Civil War Zouaves wearing turbans. A couple of regimental histories state that turbans were worn on formal dress occasions or during guard mount in encampments or garrison situations only. I have searched high and low for original accounts that clearly state that Zouaves wore turbans in battle, either as a whole unit or just a few here and there such as NCOs or members of the color guard, and I’ve found nothing. The closest it comes is the fact that the 5th New York Duryee Zouaves used their turbans like armbands at Big Bethel so they could easily identify each other in the dark. Yet, the artists and sculptors keep creating images of Zouaves wearing turbans in combat.

    It makes no sense. The amount of dust generated by thousands of troops on the march would have turned the snowy-white turbans brown in no time. Sweat would have saturated them on a hot march or in battle and turned them yellowish over time. It makes about as much sense as wearing white gloves on campaign.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s