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

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
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.
Southern women wrote in their diaries about the issue of mixed-race children resembling the white children, and about it being a common thing. If a white master slept with a black slave, there's such a power difference between the two that it's impossible to say there was any kind of "consent" involved.

I have no doubt that there were rapes of southern women by Union soldiers, but I haven't seen any evidence that it was common. And it was prosecuted by Union commanders. Slaveholders raping slaves wasn't even considered illegal.

But regarding evidence, that is why I brought up the DNA testing. It will provide evidence as to where the white DNA originated.
 

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
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.

I can certainly understand those who wish to not to give an inch to their other side when it’s no longer about finding historical truth.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I can certainly understand those who wish to not to give an inch to their other side when it’s no longer about finding historical truth.
Agreed, pretending you know it's definitely one despite the evidence showing it could be others, would be exactly that in refusing to acknowledge the evidence shows it could be others.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I was referring to the claim that Edmund Pettus was her Gr-Gr-grandfather.
It could be. Or it could be someone else. DNA will narrow it down.

But her point still stands. Many mixed-race people of today have the DNA of a slaveholder who raped a slave. That's the point about her body being a confederate monument.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
It could be. Or it could be someone else. DNA will narrow it down.

But her point still stands. Many mixed-race people of today have the DNA of a slaveholder who raped a slave. That's the point about her body being a confederate monument.

And it's a nonsensical statement. The Confederacy lasted four years, but miscegenation is a human practice in general, going back through all of human history. Narrowing it down to American history, it was certainly in existence for the entire history of the colonies and the United States. In these days of tearing down and destroying American history, this is a transparent attempt by the author to shut down criticism and make Confederate history toxic all in one fell swoop.

Even if we accepted that she's a "Confederate monument", where does that leave the millions of others who are descended from Confederates? Does our point of view mean nothing, because our ancestors were not products of rape? That's an absurd and offensive claim to make. I don't think the author really thought this through beyond "I and my ancestors are victims, I can claim the moral high ground because of that."
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
It could be. Or it could be someone else. DNA will narrow it down.

But her point still stands. Many mixed-race people of today have the DNA of a slaveholder who raped a slave. That's the point about her body being a confederate monument.
Her point doesn't stand. She claims to be a "Confederate monument" because of the supposed Pettus connection. It's not true.

As for that matter, she may be a United States monument or a British, French, or Spanish monument.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
And it's a nonsensical statement. The Confederacy lasted four years, but miscegenation is a human practice in general, going back through all of human history. Narrowing it down to American history, it was certainly in existence for the entire history of the colonies and the United States. In these days of tearing down and destroying American history, this is a transparent attempt by the author to shut down criticism and make Confederate history toxic all in one fell swoop.

Even if we accepted that she's a "Confederate monument", where does that leave the millions of others who are descended from Confederates? Does our point of view mean nothing, because our ancestors were not products of rape? That's an absurd and offensive claim to make. I don't think the author really thought this through beyond "I and my ancestors are victims, I can claim the moral high ground because of that."
I think you're missing her point. She's not writing about all miscegenation in general, or about white southerners with confederate ancestors. She's specifically writing about mixed-race persons descended from a white master and a black slave.

I haven't read the entire article because of the paywall, but the impression from the excerpt is that people such as herself, with white confederate ancestors, are never going to celebrate or accept confederate monuments.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Her point doesn't stand. She claims to be a "Confederate monument" because of the supposed Pettus connection. It's not true.

As for that matter, she may be a United States monument or a British, French, or Spanish monument.
She may be wrong as to her ancestor, it's true. But you can't say with any certainty that it wasn't a confederate.

DNA will provide evidence.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
I think you're missing her point. She's not writing about all miscegenation in general, or about white southerners with confederate ancestors. She's specifically writing about mixed-race persons descended from a white master and a black slave.

I haven't read the entire article because of the paywall, but the impression from the excerpt is that people such as herself, with white confederate ancestors, are never going to celebrate or accept confederate monuments.

No, I understand her point. And I dispute the idea that claiming victimhood entitles her to any more of a say than any of us have. Particularly if her specific claim about Pettus doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. The truth is that she has no idea who did what to who, but she's more than willing to cast assumptions as fact, offer harsh binary choices, and make demands of the rest of us.

Full article: https://nacrj.org/images/General/Ex...ate_Monument_OpEd_-_C._Williams_6-26-2020.pdf
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
No, I understand her point. And I dispute the idea that claiming victimhood entitles her to any more of a say than any of us have. Particularly if her specific claim about Pettus doesn't even stand up to scrutiny. The truth is that she has no idea who did what to who, but she's more than willing to cast assumptions as fact, offer harsh binary choices, and make demands of the rest of us.

Full article: https://nacrj.org/images/General/Ex...ate_Monument_OpEd_-_C._Williams_6-26-2020.pdf
Thanks for the link. She writes of her white ancestors as "white southern men" - plural - and enslaved black women, and she says she's basing that on family history and modern DNA testing.

So while she only mentions Pettus specifically, she may have other white southern ancestors identified with DNA.

She has a strong opinion, and she's just as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. She provides input into the monuments controversy from a unique point of view, and I think that's fine.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
She has a strong opinion, and she's just as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. She provides input into the monuments controversy from a unique point of view, and I think that's fine.

Agree, she has every right to express her opinion, as strongly as she likes. And I have the right to strongly disagree with her.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Agree, she has every right to express her opinion, as strongly as she likes. And I have the right to strongly disagree with her.

What irks me is that her opinion makes broad, and unsubstantiated claims such as:
"my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists"; and
"I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual" yet "I am the daughter of two black people, the granddaughter of four black people, the great-granddaughter of eight black people".
I do not know of anyone denying that rape occurred ("They deny plantation rape") but when you allege that all were rapists and that none were consensual it is clearly an opinion that is designed to slur all white southern people. And contrary to her claim that DNA testing confirms rape ["modern DNA testing has allowed me to confirm, I am the descendant of black women who were domestic servants and white men who raped their help"], it does not. It merely claims an ancestry from a particular line (and only if that information is available).
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
What irks me is that her opinion makes broad, and unsubstantiated claims such as:
"my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists"; and
"I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual" yet "I am the daughter of two black people, the granddaughter of four black people, the great-granddaughter of eight black people".
I do not know of anyone denying that rape occurred ("They deny plantation rape") but when you allege that all were rapists and that none were consensual it is clearly an opinion that is designed to slur all white southern people. And contrary to her claim that DNA testing confirms rape ["modern DNA testing has allowed me to confirm, I am the descendant of black women who were domestic servants and white men who raped their help"], it does not. It merely claims an ancestry from a particular line (and only if that information is available).
I couldn't agree more.

".....all of them were rapists.." & .."none of it was consensual.." <-- hardcore assumptions, based on narrative, not evidence. Seems to be a common theme lately. Plenty of folks soak it up too. The odd thing is, some of the same folks are super skeptical about historical claims they don't like. On those topics, no amount of evidence is sufficient. Weird.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The idea of consensual sex between a slaveholder and a slave is ridiculous. Even if a slave seemed willing, like Sally Hemings, there was an element of negotiating favorable treatment for her children. So she had to make choices that white women of the era did not.

Slaveholders who had sexual relations with slaves were rapists. They used the unequal power of their position to force slaves to have sex.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The odd thing is, some of the same folks are super skeptical about historical claims they don't like. On those topics, no amount of evidence is sufficient. Weird.
As I've said, there is primary source evidence from the diaries of southern women, and there is a growing body of evidence from DNA testing.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I think you're missing her point. She's not writing about all miscegenation in general, or about white southerners with confederate ancestors. She's specifically writing about mixed-race persons descended from a white master and a black slave.

I haven't read the entire article because of the paywall, but the impression from the excerpt is that people such as herself, with white confederate ancestors, are never going to celebrate or accept confederate monuments.
Actually it appears you missed his point.....

The majority of inter-racial DNA, even if even actually proven from master-slave relationships, would be a monument to the United States not the Confederacy. As it would occur in the US, and under US laws as there's 90 years of US slavery compared to 4 for the Confederacy.....not to mention well over 100 years colonial slavery. So out of roughly 250 years of slavery in North America only 4 yrs possibly could have a linage from the Confederacy......though even then slaves were still being born in US states as well those four.....

Pettus was born in 1821, fast forward to he was 18 and assume a legal owner would be 1839, he would be American slaveowner for 22 years.....a Confederate one only 4.

Looking at Pettus from a slave owner angle, he represents the US more then the CSA.

But as pointed out previously in the thread, someone born in 1893 was not a product of the Confederacy, nor from a slave-master relationship, and rather unlikely fathered by a 72 year old.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Actually it appears you missed his point.....

The majority of inter-racial DNA, even if even actually proven from master-slave relationships, would be a monument to the United States not the Confederacy. As it would occur in the US, and under US laws as there's 90 years of US slavery compared to 4 for the Confederacy.....not to mention well over 100 years colonial slavery. So out of roughly 250 years of slavery in North America only 4 yrs possibly could have a linage from the Confederacy......though even then slaves were still being born in US states as well those four.....

Pettus was born in 1821, fast forward to he was 18 and assume a legal owner would be 1839, he would be American slaveowner for 22 years.....a Confederate one only 4.

Looking at Pettus from a slave owner angle, he represents the US more then the CSA.

But as pointed out previously in the thread, someone born in 1893 was not a product of the Confederacy, nor from a slave-master relationship, and rather unlikely fathered by a 72 year old.
Actually it seems I'm about the only one who got the point.

She's writing about why she will never celebrate or accept confederate monuments. Confederate Monuments. She explains why, by citing one specific generation of her family in which white slaveholders impregnated her black slave ancestors. This would have been in the mid 1800's in a slave state. It doesn't matter if the rapes were in the years leading up to the war. We know what brought on the war, and we know what the confederacy stood for. The author knows that if the confederacy had won, the rapes would have continued unabated.

Nothing about colonial times. Nothing about the laws, federal or state, which made it legal to rape slaves. Everything you write is irrelevant to her point. And absolutely nothing authoritative was "pointed out" about the authors genealogy. She specifically wrote that she has DNA evidence in addition to family history, and that it happened to more than one great-great grandmother.

It was white slaveholders raping female black slaves that made her mixed-race, and there was no real consent possible in that situation. That's the bottom line. People need to stop trying to make excuses for it.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Actually it seems I'm about the only one who got the point.

She's writing about why she will never celebrate or accept confederate monuments. Confederate Monuments. She explains why, by citing one specific generation of her family in which white slaveholders impregnated her black slave ancestors. This would have been in the mid 1800's in a slave state. It doesn't matter if the rapes were in the years leading up to the war. We know what brought on the war, and we know what the confederacy stood for. The author knows that if the confederacy had won, the rapes would have continued unabated.

Nothing about colonial times. Nothing about the laws, federal or state, which made it legal to rape slaves. Everything you write is irrelevant to her point. And absolutely nothing authoritative was "pointed out" about the authors genealogy. She specifically wrote that she has DNA evidence in addition to family history, and that it happened to more than one great-great grandmother.

It was white slaveholders raping female black slaves that made her mixed-race, and there was no real consent possible in that situation. That's the bottom line. People need to stop trying to make excuses for it.
Obviously you don't as 1893 has nothing to do with slavery or the Confederacy,

Agree people need to quit making excuses for US slavery and acknowledge most our history with slavery has nothing to with the Confederacy, but the United States and Colonial powers, but guess reality doesn't fit their preconceived talking points.

People misguidedingly focusing on four years and ignoring that the majority occured in the other 250 would be very relevant if one is interested in actually being honest.
 
Top