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

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
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.
Where did the author mention 1893?

While slavery existed in this country prior to the civil war, only one group of slavery fanatics were so addicted to it that they would betray their country and start a war to protect it. And it’s that same generation that the author focuses her attention, and indicts for sexually assaulting her ancestors.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Slaveholders who had sexual relations with slaves were rapists. They used the unequal power of their position to force slaves to have sex.
To classify every mixed race child born to a slave women, as the product of rape isn't fact based history. It's narrative. European DNA doesn't prove rape, it proves sexual relations.

Personally, I find the accusation that every white man who had sexual relations with a slave women, to be a rapist, very offensive.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
To classify every mixed race child born to a slave women, as the product of rape isn't fact based history. It's narrative. European DNA doesn't prove rape, it proves sexual relations.

Personally, I find the accusation that every white man who had sexual relations with a slave women, to be a rapist, very offensive.
If the sexual relations were between two free people of different races, I agree.

If the sexual relations were between a slaveholder and a slave, it was rape.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
To classify every mixed race child born to a slave women, as the product of rape isn't fact based history. It's narrative. European DNA doesn't prove rape, it proves sexual relations.

Personally, I find the accusation that every white man who had sexual relations with a slave women, to be a rapist, very offensive.
Not only is it not somehow always rape.......and very offensive ..but the vast majority of 250 years of slavery in North America, and any resulting DNA would have nothing to do with the Confederacy as well.

The genealogy was provided in the thread previously........ His talking points don't hold water, especially if he's wanting to weight DNA, as 250 yrs would have far more DNA implications then just part of the country for four years.
 

CowCavalry

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Where did the author mention 1893?

While slavery existed in this country prior to the civil war, only one group of slavery fanatics were so addicted to it that they would betray their country and start a war to protect it. And it’s that same generation that the author focuses her attention, and indicts for sexually assaulting her ancestors.
She didn't mention 1893, she said her GGgrandfather was the son of Edmund Pettus. The gggrandfather was born in 1893, when Pettus would have been 72 yrs old. I guess its possible, however unlikely.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
If the sexual relations were between two free people of different races, I agree.

If the sexual relations were between a slaveholder and a slave, it was rape.
In your opinion.

Again, rape as a crime, is as hardcore as it gets. Rapists are the lowest rung on the ladder of human existence (right next to pedophiles). To accuse someone, of such without evidence is offensive. Even when discussing a historical figure of 200 years ago.

Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a Rapist..?
 

CowCavalry

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
In your opinion.

Again, rape as a crime, is as hardcore as it gets. Rapists are the lowest rung on the ladder of human existence (right next to pedophiles). To accuse someone, of such without evidence is offensive. Even when discussing a historical figure of 200 years ago.

Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a Rapist..?
Check out Zephaniah Kingsley, he was the exception rather than the rule but he had a black wife, interracial children with her and other slaves that were "common law wives". This in the late 18th, early 19th century.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
She didn't mention 1893, she said her GGgrandfather was the son of Edmund Pettus. The gggrandfather was born in 1893, when Pettus would have been 72 yrs old. I guess its possible, however unlikely.
She made clear that was based on his understanding of the family history. But in the full article, she mentions that the DNA evidence proves that several of the g-g-grandmothers of her family were impregnated as slaves. That is the generation that she is writing about.

So a person has 8 g-g-grandmothers. Those who want to discredit the author are focusing on only one g-g-grandmother.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a Rapist..?
Unfortunately, yes. Even the Sally Hemings exhibit at Monticello uses the word rape, but with a question mark. And Hemings herself was the mixed-race daughter of a white slaveholder and his female slave.

And there will be more prominent slaveholders exposed as the DNA gets mapped out.

The DNA testing for the Jefferson case was done in the 1990's. The technology has gotten better and more widespread since then, and it will continue that trend. People are curious about their ancestors. Just look at Ancestry.com.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Hmmm would think a question mark instead of yes, indicates we don't know...

And as Viper has said is both rather offensive and irresponsible.
Or, the "question mark" may indicate that it is a subject that requires sensitivity for those people who are offended by the accusation.

It is a bit jarring how the roles are switched in this thread. In most of these discussions, the people who are offended by confederate iconography are mocked. Those people need to simply look away, or get over it.

In this thread, it's the confederate defenders who are offended by openly stating what every southern white woman knew as fact. White slaveholding men routinely forced black female slaves to have sexual relations. And now thanks to DNA, many current mixed-race American blacks will be able to figure out where their race became "mixed."

And the irony is that southerners claim to be all about their ancestors. And their heritage. And yet they find it upsetting and offensive to think that mixed-race Americans might want to find their own ancestors. It's an extreme hypocrisy.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Or, the "question mark" may indicate that it is a subject that requires sensitmivity for those people who are offended by the accusation.

It is a bit jarring how the roles are switched in this thread. In most of these discussions, the people who are offended by confederate iconography are mocked. Those people need to simply look away, or get over it.

In this thread, it's the confederate defenders who are offended by openly stating what every southern white woman knew as fact. White slaveholding men routinely forced black female slaves to have sexual relations. And now thanks to DNA, many current mixed-race American blacks will be able to figure out where their race became "mixed."

And the irony is that southerners claim to be all about their ancestors. And their heritage. And yet they find it upsetting and offensive to think that mixed-race Americans might want to find their own ancestors. It's an extreme hypocrisy.
Again the simple fact is we don't know as DNA says it could in fact be 7 others besides Thomas Jefferson.

We could put "Homosexual?" on Abe Lincoln memorials or "crazy?" on Mary Todd Lincolns as well, again some evidence suggests they might likewise be true.

But we don't, because we actually don't know with certainty, it would be disrespectful, and if even if it was true has absolutely nothing to do with what they are actually memorialized for. See little reason Jefferson shouldn't have the same respect.

And actually has nothing to with southerners, as it doesn't matter where one is from, to find unsubstantiated claims about ones family offensive.

And again to think all white DNA comes from rape, or even slaveowners in cases of rape, is rather absurd as well. Slaves as well as free blacks had little legal recourse so would be as easy victims to non slaveowners, north or south.
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Or, the "question mark" may indicate that it is a subject that requires sensitivity for those people who are offended by the accusation.

It is a bit jarring how the roles are switched in this thread. In most of these discussions, the people who are offended by confederate iconography are mocked. Those people need to simply look away, or get over it.

In this thread, it's the confederate defenders who are offended by openly stating what every southern white woman knew as fact. White slaveholding men routinely forced black female slaves to have sexual relations. And now thanks to DNA, many current mixed-race American blacks will be able to figure out where their race became "mixed."

And the irony is that southerners claim to be all about their ancestors. And their heritage. And yet they find it upsetting and offensive to think that mixed-race Americans might want to find their own ancestors. It's an extreme hypocrisy.
Thats a crock. Nothing more than conjecture.

The hypocrisy is in the differing standards of evidence for claims that one can't prove.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Again the simple fact is we don't know as DNA says it could in fact be 7 others besides Thomas Jefferson.

We could put "Homosexual?" on Abe Lincoln memorials or "crazy?" on Mary Todd Lincolns as well, again some evidence suggests they might likewise be true.

But we don't, because we actually don't know with certainty, it would be disrespectful, and if even if it was true has absolutely nothing to do with what they are actually memorialized for. See little reason Jefferson shouldn't have the same respect.

And actually has nothing to with southerners, as it doesn't matter where one is from, to find unsubstantiated claims about ones family offensive.

And again to think all white DNA comes from rape, or even slaveowners in cases of rape, is rather absurd as well. Slaves as well as free blacks had little legal recourse so would be as easy victims to non slaveowners, north or south.
As I wrote earlier, the Jefferson testing was done almost 25 years ago. I don't know if they've done any more recent testing, but it's not accurate to say it could have been 7 others. That is not true from what I've read.

Consumer DNA testing and the DNA mapping of family on sites like Ancestry will provide the evidence. That is how the evidence, and proof, will be provided. It's already led to old crimes being solved.

And if the DNA leads to a white non-slaveholder and a free black woman, then of course it could be consensual.

If the DNA leads to a white slaveholder and an enslaved black woman, then it is a situation where the woman could not give real consent. The difference in power, legal and cultural, was known by the woman. She could only weigh all the repercussions, and make a choice under duress. It was rape, and even if the law said it was legal, the slaveholder knew it was immoral.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Thats a crock. Nothing more than conjecture.

The hypocrisy is in the differing standards of evidence for claims that one can't prove.
If the DNA testing reveals that the majority of mixed-race births in the antebellum originated from free black women, then you'll be right and I'll be wrong.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
As I wrote earlier, the Jefferson testing was done almost 25 years ago. I don't know if they've done any more recent testing, but it's not accurate to say it could have been 7 others. That is not true from what I've read.

Consumer DNA testing and the DNA mapping of family on sites like Ancestry will provide the evidence. That is how the evidence, and proof, will be provided. It's already led to old crimes being solved.

And if the DNA leads to a white non-slaveholder and a free black woman, then of course it could be consensual.

If the DNA leads to a white slaveholder and an enslaved black woman, then it is a situation where the woman could not give real consent. The difference in power, legal and cultural, was known by the woman. She could only weigh all the repercussions, and make a choice under duress. It was rape, and even if the law said it was legal, the slaveholder knew it was immoral.
And yet again you have provided nothing that says it was one man with certainty. Nor provided how it's relevant to what he is in fact honored for.

It's much like many figures could have "adulterer." with the period instead of a question mark, often where they were in a position of power to influence the affair if you think that equates rape, but again has nothing to do with what they are actually honored for.

Not sure bout you, but when I look at a memorial to a founder, president, military figure or any other public figure, I have never took it to mean they are perfect, or one has to agree with every aspect of their lives at all. If it did all memorials would be in need of being removed.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
The author makes a number of claims, few of which she provides evidence for. Why does she make these claims? What is the purpose of this article? Not to call out the bad actors, but to convict everyone as a bad actor. And because they were all bad, memorials to them must come down and those who honor them must change their minds or be convicted as equally guilty.

When someone says "all" or "none", they're sliding into general stereotypes and that is a problem of prejudice. The author does this frequently, without providing any evidence that the circumstances were as she claims they were, other than herself. Which is not evidence at all, despite her attempts to batter readers into surrendering to her point of view. From the article:

"of my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists"​
"I am more than half white, and none of it was consensual"​
"But I am not proud of the white ancestors whom I know, by virtue of my very existence, to be bad actors"​
"I defy any sentimental Southerner to defend our ancestors to me. I am quite literally made of the reasons to strip them of their laurels."​

All the whites of that generation are guilty by the time you get to the end of the article. She starts out narrowly with just her ancestors, but by the time she reaches the closing paragraphs it's everyone from the South, and we get the false binary choice: either agree with her version of history, or else you're a hater. This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to batter the reader into submission.
 
Last edited:

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
Hmmm would think a question mark instead of yes, indicates we don't know...

And as Viper has said is both rather offensive and irresponsible.
The tests do not prove that it was TJ, only that it was a Jefferson male. There has been a lot of speculation that it could, for instance, have been TJ's brother. So, the question mark is because they don't know for certain (although a lot of circumstantial evidence seems to indicate it was TJ).
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
If the DNA testing reveals that the majority of mixed-race births in the antebellum originated from free black women, then you'll be right and I'll be wrong.
You've already admitted you're wrong by not providing any evidence.

DNA proves relations, not rape. To make such an accusation requires evidence. At least to be taken serious. Without evidence, it's simply a claim. An unsubstantiated one at that.

I find it ridiculous to make such claims without evidence. Every other claim made on this site, has required evidence to be taken serious. So should this one.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
And yet again you have provided nothing that says it was one man with certainty. Nor provided how it's relevant to what he is in fact honored for.

It's much like many figures could have "adulterer." with the period instead of a question mark, often where they were in a position of power to influence the affair if you think that equates rape, but again has nothing to do with what they are actually honored for.

Not sure bout you, but when I look at a memorial to a founder, president, military figure or any other public figure, I have never took it to mean they are perfect, or one has to agree with every aspect of their lives at all. If it did all memorials would be in need of being removed.
None of this is relevant to what I've actually written.
 
Top