Discussion South Carolina: New Bill introduced for a monument to Black Confederates

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Who gives us the 'right' to judge if some one is 'black enough' to be considered BLACK? or Irish enough? or Chinese enough?
Actually, the concepts of "blackness" and "whiteness" have been re-defined and contested throughout US history.

The US concept of race has been a social construction, not a scientific one. For example, a person who can pass for white is almost certainly mostly European in their DNA, yet, a few "drops" of African blood often deems such persons "black"... it is society which constructs these distinctions. The distinctions being made have varied over time and space, and even within ethnic groups.

Regarding the subject at hand, if a person who enlisted identified themselves as white, and was assumed by his peers to be white, then that person should be considered white, IMO. There is such as thing as a white person with some African ancestry, as I see it, although this is not a controversy free notion.

- Alan
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
In the eyes of the Union they were enough of a soldier to go to prison.

"Nineteen of the Confederate prisoners captured at Gettysburg and taken to Fort Delaware were African American"
Mark Eichmann 2015

Maybe because the Union had already issued General Order 100 in April 1863 which stipulated that the United States government would expect all prisoners to be treated equally, regardless of color. Those black men might have been "servants" or slaves to the Confederacy, but were actual human POWs to the Union.

Funny that the Union army showed those black men more respect than their supposed Confederate "comrades" who officially refused to allow armed black soldiers to join their ranks.

Not to mention that the Confederacy adamantly rejected the suggestion made the Union that black soldiers should be included in the POW exchange program since the Confederacy refused to recognize Black Union troops as they saw blacks as properties as they did in PA when the ANV kidnapped local black residents during the Gettysburg campaign and sold them as slaves for profit.

So what the Confederacy was doing with those mythical black armed soldiers?

Hogging hundreds of thousand gallant black soldiers without giving them any official recognition nor agreeing to release them to the Union, so the Confederacy could show the Union who were the REAL champion of racial inclusion and tolerance when time was right for them?

Official policy has nothing to do with the subject, unless one remains stuck on the endless and ultimately pointless debate over the causes of the war. The irony over the "official policy" argument being that it largely comes from people who don't even believe the CSA government actually existed in the first place, SMH.

The subject of Black Confederates has to do with honoring and respecting the Southern dead, first and foremost.

The official policy matters since the 'Black Confederate' myth completely contradicts with what Richmond actually did during the war and It only renders the conclusion that the Confederacy was an incompetent organization did not know what they were doing and failed to enforce their official rules.

It is regardless whether the organization in Richmond was an actual government or not. Even a terriorist group has own set of rules.
It just happened to be the official policy of CSA since slave-holding states attempted to secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. Therefore, the Confederacy did not want 'Black' in front of 'Confederates' when it comes to armed soldiers of their army up until early 1865. I 100% agree with you that veterans of the War should be honored, but I think, even for a very small number of oddballs, they should be remembered as just 'Confederates' rather than 'Black Confederates'.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Maybe because the Union had already issued General Order 100 in April 1863 which stipulated that the United States government would expect all prisoners to be treated equally, regardless of color. Those black men might have been "servants" or slaves to the Confederacy, but were actual human POWs to the Union.
:nah disagree:

So they were humanely treated by keeping them in prison camps that had rampant disease and 20-25% mortality?
You gotta be kidding...
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Member of the Month
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
Maybe because the Union had already issued General Order 100 in April 1863 which stipulated that the United States government would expect all prisoners to be treated equally, regardless of color. Those black men might have been "servants" or slaves to the Confederacy, but were actual human POWs to the Union.

Funny that the Union army showed those black men more respect than their supposed Confederate "comrades" who officially refused to allow armed black soldiers to join their ranks.

Not to mention that the Confederacy adamantly rejected the suggestion made the Union that black soldiers should be included in the POW exchange program since the Confederacy refused to recognize Black Union troops as they saw blacks as properties as they did in PA when the ANV kidnapped local black residents during the Gettysburg campaign and sold them as slaves for profit.

So what the Confederacy was doing with those mythical black armed soldiers?

Hogging hundreds of thousand gallant black soldiers without giving them any official recognition nor agreeing to release them to the Union, so the Confederacy could show the Union who were the REAL champion of racial inclusion and tolerance when time was right for them?



The official policy matters since the 'Black Confederate' myth completely contradicts with what Richmond actually did during the war and It only renders the conclusion that the Confederacy was an incompetent organization did not know what they were doing and failed to enforce their official rules.

It is regardless whether the organization in Richmond was an actual government or not. Even a terriorist group has own set of rules.
It just happened to be the official policy of CSA since slave-holding states attempted to secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. Therefore, the Confederacy did not want 'Black' in front of 'Confederates' when it comes to armed soldiers of their army up until early 1865. I 100% agree with you that veterans of the War should be honored, but I think, even for a very small number of oddballs, they should be remembered as just 'Confederates' rather than 'Black Confederates'.
Just an excuse to try lay blame on Conferate's. Lincoln and others in Washington knew keeping Confederate POW would eventually deplete Lee's army.
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
I've seen several photos of men identified as 'mulatto' in census records who enlisted in the Confederate army.
Maybe one or two out of 10 could 'pass as white.' So that theory doesn't work very well.

So the Confederates were idiots who didn't know their policy and did not bother to enforce their official policy by allowing several 'mulattos' into their army.

Got it

Then again, why did the Confederate generals even bother to petition Richmond over the employment of armed black soldiers? They could have just quietly recruited many black & mixed race armed soldiers by ignoring their official policy.

So they were humanely treated by keeping them in prison camps that had rampant disease and 20-25% mortality?

Sadly the Confederacy refused to recognize USCT and include those men in the POW exchange program. So both sides had to suffer in pow camps where conditions were not so great. At least the US government gave US black soldiers official recognizition that they deserved. I can't say the same thing for the Confederacy.

Just an excuse to try lay blame on Conferate's. Lincoln and others in Washington knew keeping Confederate POW would eventually deplete Lee's army.
You are probably right. However, It was a legimate excuse since USCT were officially recognized armed soldiers of United States of America and It was correct for the US to demand those black soldiers to be included in the POW exchange program at the time.

Too bad, the Confederacy fell right into the Lincoln's trap. Only if the Confederacy had been racially inclusive & tolerance enough to officially recognize black armed soldiers...
 
Last edited:

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Member of the Month
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
Racially inclusive? Who? USCT were segregated units. The northerners didn't want their sons to serve beside them, nor did they care what happen to them, as long as they when back south after the war. Working in places like Quartermasters Department, and the Pioneer Corps in Mowers XVI Corps just how many do you think fell into Confederate hands?
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Back to the subject of the thread...
Many black South Carolinians have Confederate roots (and they know it), but in the current climate may be dangerous to acknowledge.
They may even have artifacts- caps, uniforms, photos, etc -but they are unlikely to see the light of day.
 

AshleyMel

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Why would it be dangerous for a black person to acknowledge that?
In some cases, it is the same reason why black and women of color in the UDC choose to keep a low profile. Doxxing, shaming and for fear of personal safety. Some are worried they might lose their jobs and means of support for their families with public acknowledgement of any Confederate ties. Short of disassociation and condemnation of their ties to the Confederacy, any public statements on feelings or beliefs about any possible connections to their ancestry or heritage will be used against them in a negative way. Personally, outside of this forum, I am now very careful what I post on social media and how I engage in discussion. Whenever I am at an event or memorial ceremony, I am always worried about pictures or video that might be taken and how my attendance will be interpreted by others. For some of us, it feels like the bullies of our past have just been reincarnated under different guises.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
In some cases, it is the same reason why black and women of color in the UDC choose to keep a low profile. Doxxing, shaming and for fear of personal safety. Some are worried they might lose their jobs and means of support for their families with public acknowledgement of any Confederate ties. Short of disassociation and condemnation of their ties to the Confederacy, any public statements on feelings or beliefs about any possible connections to their ancestry or heritage will be used against them in a negative way. Personally, outside of this forum, I am now very careful what I post on social media and how I engage in discussion. Whenever I am at an event or memorial ceremony, I am always worried about pictures or video that might be taken and how my attendance will be interpreted by others. For some of us, it feels like the bullies of our past have just been reincarnated under different guises.
But simply acknowledging a connection to a confederate ancestor is not the same as honoring the confederacy. I'm sure that there are mixed-race descendants of white confederate men and their female slaves. Acknowledging that now is not going to put the modern descendant in danger.

It is the honoring of the confederacy that has become controversial today, not simply acknowledging a confederate ancestor.
 

AshleyMel

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
But simply acknowledging a connection to a confederate ancestor is not the same as honoring the confederacy. I'm sure that there are mixed-race descendants of white confederate men and their female slaves. Acknowledging that now is not going to put the modern descendant in danger.

It is the honoring of the confederacy that has become controversial today, not simply acknowledging a confederate ancestor.
As a child whose fathers side of the family was enslaved and a mother whose ancestors were slave owners, I wish it was as simple as that, like I said, anything short of out right rejection and condemnation of the Confederacy is seen as somehow supporting the Confederacy. Especially when looking at our membership in heritage organizations. It does my heart good when I am able to connect with other women of color in the UDC, to know that we are not alone, but then to understand that we are being judged unfairly today for that membership. The go-to is for us to be looked as as some type of weird variant. I've experienced it time and time again and so have others in even more serious ways than I. All one had to do is google the many articles, essays, twitter threads and even books stating their scholarly views on this subject and then see the escalation into condemnation of individuals today. Anyone should have the liberty to remember or honor their personal connections to history in the way that they deem appropriate for themselves without fear of harm.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Anyone should have the liberty to remember or honor their personal connections to history in the way that they deem appropriate for themselves without fear of harm.
I agree, but I think there is a difference between honoring and remembering an ancestor, and honoring the confederate cause. It's possible to remember an ancestor, and understand the society they lived in, without ennobling and glorifying that society.

Remembering an ancestor, the stories passed down through the family, tending their grave with flowers... nobody has any problem with that, and nobody is in danger for doing so. It's the honoring of the confederacy that is controversial.
 

AshleyMel

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
I agree, but I think there is a difference between honoring and remembering an ancestor, and honoring the confederate cause.
I don't think we disagree on this point.
I think sometimes those two issues get blurred in these discussions and I do believe that blurring is deliberate by some. This is why it is important to use language that is specific and not general.

Remembering an ancestor, the stories passed down through the family, tending their grave with flowers... nobody has any problem with that, and nobody is in danger for doing so.
As someone who has participated in memorial ceremonies, most definitely some do have problems with these acts of remembrance and that line of personal freedom, safety and liberty is constantly in danger of being crossed. There have been occasions (more than I care to mention) where personal and private remembrances and events were found out and the safety of the attendees was not a guarantee. I don't want to belabor the point but it is important for their to be clarity on this issue.
 
Last edited:

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
As a child whose fathers side of the family was enslaved and a mother whose ancestors were slave owners, I wish it was as simple as that, like I said, anything short of out right rejection and condemnation of the Confederacy is seen as somehow supporting the Confederacy. Especially when looking at our membership in heritage organizations. It does my heart good when I am able to connect with other women of color in the UDC, to know that we are not alone, but then to understand that we are being judged unfairly today for that membership. The go-to is for us to be looked as as some type of weird variant. I've experienced it time and time again and so have others in even more serious ways than I. All one had to do is google the many articles, essays, twitter threads and even books stating their scholarly views on this subject and then see the escalation into condemnation of individuals today. Anyone should have the liberty to remember or honor their personal connections to history in the way that they deem appropriate for themselves without fear of harm.

Good to know that now not all mixed-race women, like Ashley, feel that way and they somehow feel secure about themselves enough to honor their ancestors who might have been either slave-owners or supported slavery.

But I am sure people like Ashley would understand that why many women of color (especially young folks of my age) don't feel comfortable or are even upset with UDC which had tried to portray slavery as a positive good or a benevolent institution in the name of honoring their Confederate forefathers in the past. Of course, I personally know this isn't mostly the case anymore. UDC members of Virginia chapters I met were wonderful women and I admire their dedication.

However, I am not going to lie. SCV, UDC and other Confederate heritage organizations have a problem with how they are perceived by the public (especially the youth) due to their part in justification of slavery in the South and the Confederacy's cause for the 'peculiar institution' in the past.

No, there is no point of saying "oh look but the Union was also racist" "the Union also had slaves" "the Union committed a genocide against native American" "Lincoln was white supremacist" "Only few had slaves in the South. My Confederate ancestors did not have slaves" "My Confederate ancestors did not give a hoot about slavery!"

All of those words are seen as a poor excuse & attempt to minimize the role of slavery in the ACW and the historical impact on African American especially by the youth of my age and people of color I have spoke with. What's even worse is that they perceive that SCV, UDC and other Confederate heritage organizations are still approving those messages & sentiments I have stated above.

So I believe SCV, UDC and other Confederate heritage groups should work harder with the public to improve their tainted image that is riddled with blatant and subtle apologias for chattel slavery and the Confederacy's cause for their peculiar institution. I am sure everyone could eventually work out something is mutually beneficial and respectful.
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Why would it be dangerous for a black person to acknowledge that?
People who don't think like them often get nasty, & or violent, with their dissent.

I know a couple UDC ladies who happen to be Black. One of them shared some personal stories of attacks, & nastiness that she has dealt with BECAUSE she's a UDC member. I can't put on this forum the names, insults, & personal threats she has received. She told me the overwhelming majority of those attacks, have come from other Black people.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
People who don't think like them often get nasty, & or violent, with their dissent.

I know a couple UDC ladies who happen to be Black. One of them shared some personal stories of attacks, & nastiness that she has dealt with BECAUSE she's a UDC member. I can't put on this forum the names, insults, & personal threats she has received. She told me the overwhelming majority of those attacks, have come from other Black people.
But joining the UDC is going beyond merely acknowledging a connection to the confederacy. It's crossing into honoring the confederacy, and I can imagine how some might find the idea of a black person honoring the confederacy to be upsetting.

The original claim was that even acknowledging a connection to the confederacy would put a black person in danger.
 
Top