Restricted You Want a Confederate Monument? My Body Is a Confederate Monument

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The current trend with a great deal of the humanities people is to argue the theory consent could not happen even if both parties believed they were consenting in the past era if the pair existed under different power and authority levels.
Which is somewhat bizarre, as that's a standard we don't even use today.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Caroline Randall Williams: "My great-grandfather Will was raised with the knowledge that Edmund Pettus was his father."

These are the generations:

1. Caroline Randall Williams (born 1987)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Randall_Williams

2. Mother: Alice Randall (born 1959)
"Writer Alice Randall was born to Mari-Alice and George Randall on May 4, 1959"
https://www.thehistorymakers.org/biography/alice-randall-44

3. Grandfather: George Randall (born 1930)

4. Great-grandfather: William "Will" Randall (born 1893)

Will Randall is the one supposedly fathered by Edmund Pettus. In 1893, Pettus was 72 years old.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
You believe it was rare?
Rape? Yes
By owners? Even more so.

Everything I have read starts with the caveat there's no way to know. So certainly wouldn't speculate it was commonplace.

DNA offers little, there's no way to differentiate between slave sex, consential sex, rape by a owner, rape by a slave, or rape by white non owner. It would grow somewhat exponentally as every mullato is going have mixed race children..whether free or slave....whether consential or not.....and whether with a black or white. So to suggest it somehow reflects owners or even primarily owners, would be rather false.

As it's rather easy to see one mullato slave could easily have fathered multiple mullato children on different plantations, and whose offspring would also have mullato children, and would had nothing to do with the owners having fathered anyone. That's simply being realistic and should caution making sensational claims I would think.

I suppose you can offer how you think you would acted in a similar situation, but it speaks little to others.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Rape? Yes
By owners? Even more so.

Everything I have read starts with the caveat there's no way to know. So certainly wouldn't speculate it was commonplace.

DNA offers little, there's no way to differentiate between slave sex, consential sex, rape by a owner, rape by a slave, or rape by white non owner. It would grow somewhat exponentally as every mullato is going have mixed race children..whether free or slave....whether consential or not.....and whether with a black or white. So to suggest it somehow reflects owners or even primarily owners, would be rather false.

As it's rather easy to see one mullato slave could easily have fathered multiple mullato children on different plantations, and whose offspring would also have mullato children, and would had nothing to do with the owners having fathered anyone. That's simply being realistic and should caution making sensational claims I would think.

I suppose you can offer how you think you would acted in a similar situation, but it speaks little to others.
Actually, it was common. Here is Mary Boykin Chestnut in her diary in 1861:

God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system & wrong & iniquity. Perhaps the rest of the world is as bad. This is only what I see: like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives & their concubines, & the Mulattos one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children-& every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think​
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Actually, it was common. Here is Mary Boykin Chestnut in her diary in 1861:

God forgive us, but ours is a monstrous system & wrong & iniquity. Perhaps the rest of the world is as bad. This is only what I see: like the patriarchs of old, our men live all in one house with their wives & their concubines, & the Mulattos one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children-& every lady tells you who is the father of all the Mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own, she seems to think drop from the clouds or pretends so to think​
Actually a personal opinion then means no more then ones today, there's actually alot of things today that are perceived far more common then they actually are, why I tend to look for things that can actually be substantiated and quantified.

And I have little doubt sexual hearsay, innuendo, and rumors were as popular then as today, and in reality often nothing more then rumor and not credible, just as they are often today still. Because honestly I doubt very few today haven't been rumored to have slept with people in their lives that they in fact didn't. (whether they were even aware of the rumors or not).

So it would seem rather baffling to suddenly think something indicates a high degree of truthfulness or credibility, when otherwise we know it doesn't at all.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Would add it's rather puzzling to use terms that have little real meaning such as "common" "commonplace" or rare" as they have no actual set values at all other then common could be assumed to be in the majority, or rare in the minority I would assume.

One person might refer to something in the 5-20% range as commonplace, while someone else might consider it rare as it's decidedly in a minority and hardly represents a statistical average or the actual majority at all.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
So it would seem rather baffling to suddenly think something indicates a high degree of truthfulness or credibility, when otherwise we know it doesn't at all.
Which is why I brought up the genetic testing. All the primary sources from the period may be denied and doubted, but the genetic testing will reveal the truth.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Which is why I brought up the genetic testing. All the primary sources from the period may be denied and doubted, but the genetic testing will reveal the truth.
But it reveals little other then specific cases to make general conclusions.

As mullatos indeed would pass mixed DNA, as would non slaveowners. Why there is little to base any claims on how widespread it was by actual owners......
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
But it reveals little other then specific cases to make general conclusions.

As mullatos indeed would pass mixed DNA, as would non slaveowners. Why there is little to base any claims on how widespread it was by actual owners......
The genetic testing will provide evidence as to where the white genes originated in a mixed-race persons heritage.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
The genetic testing will provide evidence as to where the white genes originated in a mixed-race persons heritage.
However as I've pointed out several times now, the actual times DNA has linked to an actual owner like Hemmings/Jefferson you referenced is quite rare, hardly a significant sample for any general conclusion.
 

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
As a son of the south I am not going to pretend enslaved women didn't get mistreated but I do think we should not just take assertions in the media at face value. As genetic testing advances our society is going to be confronted with many questions. Hopefully something positive will come from it.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
However as I've pointed out several times now, the actual times DNA has linked to an actual owner like Hemmings/Jefferson you referenced is quite rare, hardly a significant sample for any general conclusion.
It's fairly new. As more people do the testing for the genealogy sites, the more the history will fill out.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
It's fairly new. As more people do the testing for the genealogy sites, the more the history will fill out.
Generic genealogy testing will reveal nothing as to owners. As any white man or mullato will pass in DNA. A generic test saying you have x% DNA doesn't reveal the source at all. It could orginated outside the US for that matter. It could be from mullato slaves, a non slave owner, an overseer, a family member, it hardly reveals it's an owner.

For example even in the Jefferson case you mentioned where a specific owner was tested, we can't say with certainty it was Thomas, as there was actually 8 Jeffersons it could have been, and some suspect Randolph, another suspect is Randolph's son Isham who was living at Monticello. DNA can actually only narrow it to 8 possible individuals.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Generic genealogy testing will reveal nothing as to owners. As any white man or mullato will pass in DNA. A generic test saying you have x% DNA doesn't reveal the source at all. It could orginated outside the US for that matter. It could be from mullato slaves, a non slave owner, an overseer, a family member, it hardly reveals it's an owner.

For example even in the Jefferson case you mentioned where a specific owner was tested, we can't say with certainty it was Thomas, as there was actually 8 Jeffersons it could have been, and some suspect Randolph, another suspect is Randolph's son Isham who was living at Monticello. DNA can actually only narrow it to 8 possible individuals.
As someone who has done the Ancestry DNA test, it gives you a lot of information. It gives you a list of living people that you share DNA, from close family to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th cousins. It also gives you a historical list of parents, grandparents, great grandparents up 5th great-grandparents. Some of the great parents are listed as "potential" ancestors, so yes it may still require a bit of detective work.

But here is how a mixed-race person could narrow down the suspects. If they find they share DNA with the family of the slaveholder but not the slaveholders wife, then the rapist would be the slaveholder. If they find they share DNA with both the slaveholder AND his wife's family, then the rapist would be a son of the slaveholder.

It's possible that DNA will only lead to a family without leading to the exact person, but it will definitely provide a short list of the suspects. Even today, we see how these commercial DNA results lead to some old crime being solved by pointing out a DNA connection.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
As a son of the south I am not going to pretend enslaved women didn't get mistreated but I do think we should not just take assertions in the media at face value. As genetic testing advances our society is going to be confronted with many questions. Hopefully something positive will come from it.
I'm certainly not pretending it didn't happen, I'm sure it occured then as it does today. However to say it was rather commonplace or suggest most owners were doing so is a rather baseless claim by actual evidence.

And in my opinion isn't the type of accusation that should be made or implied without actual evidence.
 

Cycom

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California

You Want a Confederate Monument? My Body Is a Confederate Monument

By Caroline Randall Williams

"I am a black, Southern woman, and of my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists. My very existence is a relic of slavery and Jim Crow."

"It is an extraordinary truth of my life that I am biologically more than half white, and yet I have no white people in my genealogy in living memory. No. Voluntary. Whiteness. I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual. White Southern men — my ancestors — took what they wanted from women they did not love, over whom they had extraordinary power, and then failed to claim their children."

"I come from Confederates. I’ve got rebel-gray blue blood coursing my veins. My great-grandfather Will was raised with the knowledge that Edmund Pettus was his father. Pettus, the storied Confederate general, the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, the man for whom Selma’s Bloody Sunday Bridge is named. So I am not an outsider who makes these demands. I am a great-great-granddaughter."

"The black people I come from were owned by the white people I come from. The white people I come from fought and died for their Lost Cause. And I ask you now, who dares to tell me to celebrate them? Who dares to ask me to accept their mounted pedestals?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/opinion/confederate-monuments-racism.html

I believe It is a good read, even though I don't entirely agree with her.
If her other writings are similar, then she outs herself as a member of the now very popular victim class. These people, as the name implies, see themselves as perpetual victims. It is utterly pathetic to me how people can have pride (and in this case a sense of victimhood) by being born into a particular category.

As the British say: “Get on with it!”
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
If her other writings are similar, then she outs herself as a member of the now very popular victim class. These people, as the name implies, see themselves as perpetual victims. It is utterly pathetic to me how people can have pride (and in this case a sense of victimhood) by being born into a particular category.

As the British say: “Get on with it!”
In other words, dismiss whatever she has to say.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
But here is how a mixed-race person could narrow down the suspects. If they find they share DNA with the family of the slaveholder but not the slaveholders wife, then the rapist would be the slaveholder. If they find they share DNA with both the slaveholder AND his wife's family, then the rapist would be a son of the slaveholder.

It's possible that DNA will only lead to a family without leading to the exact person, but it will definitely provide a short list of the suspects. Even today, we see how these commercial DNA results lead to some old crime being solved by pointing out a DNA connection.
Pretty bold accusations. Do you have evidence to back up your claim..?

There is no doubt that sexual crimes occurred in the 19th century. There is no doubt that some slave women were raped. Having said that, I have a hard time with the insinuation that every mixed race child born, was a product of rape. There are plenty of other possibilities that I rarely see some folks even consider.

The rape assumption, feels more like narrative without evidence backing it up. I recall your skepticism when I brought up Yankee troops raping Southern women (white & black, slave & free) awhile back. Weird.
 
Top