Do you really want to generate such publicity and create such an uproar ?

Throughout the War Between the States, on both sides, valor and courage in battle were common, especially at Blakeley, where Josh's beleaguered Confederates were outnumbered 13 to one.

There are so many soldiers and units worthy of honoring, why pick one that is known to have committed atrocities and war crimes, by shooting down prisoners who had surrendered and were attempting to do so.

I believe that the race of the perpetrators is irrelevant, and indeed Black soldiers served honorably on both the Confederate and Union side. But we cannot ignore the fact that by honoring such behavior, committed by U.S. Colored Troops against soldiers who had been defeated and captured, you will without doubt stir up some very bitter racial animosity and controversy.

Can you imagine the pain and outrage this will cause to descendents of those brave confederates who fell at Blakeley ?

There are numerous battles during which the USCT's performed admirably, why bring attention to one incident where prisoners were literally murdered by them ? It seems to me that in honoring acts of murder, as if it were normal, you dishonor not only the brave Confederates who were executed, but also the many Union soldiers who performed their duties without committing war crimes, especially the brave and honorable officers who were shot while trying to prevent the killing of prisoners.

The illegal and heinous actions of these USCT's are well documented, as you know from messages you have received from several reliable sources, including excerpts from the authoritative work "The Siege of Blakeley and the Campaign of Mobile," by Roger B. Hansen & Norman A. Nicolson, (published by Historic Blakley press, with an introduction by Mary Y. Grice, Executive Director, Historic Blakeley Foundation).

As Hansen and Nicolson note, “Fort Pillow” became the battle cry of the black troops, and one of the U.S.C.T. (U.S. Colored Troops) commanders, Brigadier General William A. Pile, “…brought his outspoken abolitionist views into the field with him, "‘advocating death to all supporters of the South, past and present’.” They write that while “…there was no general massacre,…many of the union black troops did attack the Confederate whites after surrendering, and even shot two of their own officers trying to stop them. One white sergeant who was commissioned an officer the day after the assault wrote home …and stated his regiment took no live prisoners, “they killed all they took to a man.”

No good can come from honoring such crimes in the heart of the Old South, where the last thing we need is another provocation or perceived insult that could have the unintended effect of pitting people against each other, raising issues best left buried with their victims, and setting back race relations once again. Such a monument will be widely perceived as a re-writing of history and as another effort, among many, to disrespect and diminish an important aspect of Southern history and heritage.

How much better for descendants of soldiers from both sides to join together in honoring the many troops who served honorably in the armies of the South and the North in this tragic conflict.

Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my views on this matter, which I convey to you respectfully and in a spirit of sincerity and good will.

Sincerely yours,

Lewis Regenstein
Atlanta, GA