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

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
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.
I have continually and repeatedly said that I expect consumer DNA testing to provide evidence and proof.

But there is abundant evidence in primary sources from the period that indicates that it was widespread. DNA will narrow it down to specific persons.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
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.
If the white male ancestors were slaveholders and the black female ancestors were slaves, then she's right.
 

Will Carry

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Location
The Tar Heel State.
How many black women were raped by black men? How many black women had sex for profit? How many white men actually fell in love with black women but could do nothing about it. Just because you had white ancestors doesn't necessarily mean someone was raped. Does anyone buy in to that? I didn't think so......... But don't be discouraged. You are going to be OK. This is 2021. The times they are a changin'

1624907718118.png
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
None of this is relevant to what I've actually written.
That your speculation is just that, and not relevant to what we actually know I agree. However that is relevant to those who value actual facts over speculation.

As your " I have continually and repeatedly said that I expect consumer DNA testing to provide evidence and proof." says the evidence doesn't exist today, which indeed means it's just speculation.
 
Last edited:

Booner

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
May 4, 2015
Location
Boonville, MO.
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..........
Oh, there's more to Sally Hemmings than that.

Sally was born in 1773, and was the daughter of Betty Hemmings and Betty's master, John Wayles. Betty herself was of mixed race, so when Sally was born, she was 3/4's white.
After fathering Sally, John Wayles died later that year (1773).
In 1772, the first white daughter of John Wayles, Martha Wayles, now widowed from her first husband, (a Mr. Skelton), marries Thomas Jefferson.
In 1774, John Wales' estate is settled, and as part of that estate, Martha Wales Skelton Jefferson receives 135 slaves from her father's estate. Part of this inherited estate includes Betty Hemmings and some of the children she had by John Wayles, including the one year old Sally Hemmings.
Sally, the slave, and the wife of Thomas Jefferson, Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, were 1/2 sisters.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
That your speculation is just that, and not relevant to what we actually know I agree. However that is relevant to those who value actual facts over speculation.

As your " I have continually and repeatedly said that I expect consumer DNA testing to provide evidence and proof." says the evidence doesn't exist today, which indeed means it's just speculation.
If you don't believe that there is already existing evidence in the historical record of slaveholders forcing slaves to have sexual relations, then there's nothing that anyone can say to convince you otherwise. There is actually primary evidence through diaries and slave narratives, and there have been books written about the subject.

DNA testing will add to the evidence, and it will provide proof as to the specific families and persons involved.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
If you don't believe that there is already existing evidence in the historical record of slaveholders forcing slaves to have sexual relations, then there's nothing that anyone can say to convince you otherwise. There is actually primary evidence through diaries and slave narratives, and there have been books written about the subject.

DNA testing will add to the evidence, and it will provide proof as to the specific families and persons involved.
????? What a red herring. As you should know I've never said any such thing, quite to opposite I have said rather repeatedly I believe rape did occur as it does today.

What I clearly have said is I don't believe it was commonplace (a term you throw around, but never define). And the specific cases we don't know with certainty in this thread is Thomas Jefferson or the Author in the Op's claim, as she has provided no such DNA evidence at all. She makes a general claim of being over half white (without any provided DNA evidence) then goes on to claim that unsubstantiated claim is a basis that the DNA was from rape from specifically slaveowners.....(again without any actual DNA evidence of a link of any slaveowner who actually owned any of her ancestors). So in her case, ones belief in DNA evidence doesn't even apply, as absolutely no actual DNA evidence has even been provided to base it on..........
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
DNA testing will add to the evidence, and it will provide proof as to the specific families and persons involved.

DNA testing can only provide "proof" if you have known and viable DNA from that particular person and then it only proves that a sexual act occurred at the time. If you do not have DNA from that particular person from the past then the 'evidence' (based on living descendants that have provided DNA samples to the database) merely indicates that someone in that family line engaged in a sexual act. Whether the act was consensual is not, and never can be, proved by DNA. All that can be shown is that where there is a preponderance of evidence (documented accounts, verbal history and DNA evidence) one thing is more likely than the other in that particular instance.

It is certainly not evidence for all instances so such a thing is a very long way from the claims made by the writer:
"my immediate white male ancestors, all of them were rapists";
"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 don't see how you can be half white when much less than half your ancestors were white].

Also, as pointed out by others above, it seems that given the age of the accused and the short life of the Confederacy that Caroline Williams is more likely to be a US monument (given its legalised slavery) as opposed to being a Confederate monument. As stated back in Post #3 the article "is nothing more than an attempt at shock and provocation, and an attempt to silence critics of her position by claiming victimhood". The use of words like 'all' and "none" combined with a lack of actual evidence leaves the article as simply a rant against all white southern people and a slur on all their ancestors.
 

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
Oh, there's more to Sally Hemmings than that.

Sally was born in 1773, and was the daughter of Betty Hemmings and Betty's master, John Wayles. Betty herself was of mixed race, so when Sally was born, she was 3/4's white.
After fathering Sally, John Wayles died later that year (1773).
In 1772, the first white daughter of John Wayles, Martha Wayles, now widowed from her first husband, (a Mr. Skelton), marries Thomas Jefferson.
In 1774, John Wales' estate is settled, and as part of that estate, Martha Wales Skelton Jefferson receives 135 slaves from her father's estate. Part of this inherited estate includes Betty Hemmings and some of the children she had by John Wayles, including the one year old Sally Hemmings.
Sally, the slave, and the wife of Thomas Jefferson, Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, were 1/2 sisters.

DNA does prove conclusively Sally was related to John Wayles, but no its not proven without a shadow of a doubt by DNA as yet Jefferson was the father of any of Sally's Hemings children.

We actually have some unquestionable facts.

She looked like she was 15 or 16 according to Abagail Adams writing when she arrived in Britain with Jefferson's daughter to spend a few weeks in London with John and Abagail Adams before heading off to France. The expense books during the two and a half years they were together in France show he spent what would be today thousands for her clothes and health care and not the cheap stuff. She was also paid in Paris for her work as was her brother because slavery had been outlawed there.

Then we have questionable info. Sally Hemings' son Madison told a paper much of the supposed facts that have been long relied on for telling the story including that his mother and her brother demanded a list of terms for returning to Virginia where they are legal non-entities. We know for a fact James Hemings did and we have his surviving terms of indenture inked by Jefferson. We have no such surviving document by Jefferson to Sally Hemings though that doesn't mean no agreement was had.

Madison Hemings made a number of other statements to the paper such as his name was a request by Dolly Madison who promised a baby shower gift to his mother and never delivered. The truth of that can not be ascertained, but Jefferson's daughter named her own son Madison a year earlier and the date of both did coincide with the time the court of Jefferson was wooing Madison as a replacement to lead the Democratic-Republican Party.

The Federalists who claim to have met her regarded her as cunning, educated, and politically shrewd. Thomas Gibbons wrote in 1802 that "she was the most abandoned prostitute of her color -- pampered into a lascivious course of life, with the benefits of a French education, she is more lecherous than the other beasts of the Monticellian Mountain".

She was typically drawn in political cartoons of her day as a French hen.

That is the basis of what is said and what is known. There are smaller facts that can lead people to their own conclusions such as in the bank filings one of Sally Hemings children in Virginia Eston Hemings Jefferson and Thomas Jefferson Randolph (a white grandson of Jefferson) did co-sign for a bank loan for Madison Hemings.

Randolph was the main speaker for the abolition bill of 1831 and in the Civil War was a colonel for the CSA. Eston’s son John Wayles Jefferson made it to the rank of colonel for the Union.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
If you do not have DNA from that particular person from the past then the 'evidence' (based on living descendants that have provided DNA samples to the database) merely indicates that someone in that family line engaged in a sexual act. Whether the act was consensual is not, and never can be, proved by DNA.
I agree that in some cases, DNA will narrow it down to a family but not to the specific person.

And I agree that DNA by itself won't determine whether it was consensual or not. But if the DNA narrows it down to the slaveholding family, then there was no real consent possible.

If the DNA testing by the author revealed connections to the slaveholding families, then she's right to describe the white male ancestors as "all" rapists.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Also, as pointed out by others above, it seems that given the age of the accused and the short life of the Confederacy that Caroline Williams is more likely to be a US monument (given its legalised slavery) as opposed to being a Confederate monument.
Yes, she's got about a 1% chance of being a Confederate monument (and Edmund Pettus doesn't figure in that possibility) and a 99% chance of being either a Colonial or United States monument.
As stated back in Post #3 the article "is nothing more than an attempt at shock and provocation, and an attempt to silence critics of her position by claiming victimhood". The use of words like 'all' and "none" combined with a lack of actual evidence leaves the article as simply a rant against all white southern people and a slur on all their ancestors.
She's an 'excellent' race-baiter.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I agree that in some cases, DNA will narrow it down to a family but not to the specific person.

And I agree that DNA by itself won't determine whether it was consensual or not. But if the DNA narrows it down to the slaveholding family, then there was no real consent possible.

If the DNA testing by the author revealed connections to the slaveholding families, then she's right to describe the white male ancestors as "all" rapists.
That's rather bizarre, if your son, nephew or cousin rapes someone, you now think it would make you personally a rapist?

If not, it certainly doesn't make all white ancestors or even owners "rapists"...........
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
That's rather bizarre, if your son, nephew or cousin rapes someone, you now think it would make you personally a rapist?

If not, it certainly doesn't make all white ancestors or even owners "rapists"...........
I didn't say anything about nephews or cousins. When I said "family," I meant immediate family.
 
Top