S.C. Nixes Honor for Confederates

Associated Press ^ | September 30, 2003 | staff writer

[PeaRidge]

"I would be very interested in a link to a website about the black crewman."

And here you are.....www.hunley.com

You will need to search through newsletter #34.

But, if you are impatient, here is a cut from the site:

"NOTE: We now know that the 5th crewman was Absolum Williams - the only Afro-American crewman to die associated with the Hunley. His name was never inscribed on the Hunley Memorial Monument at South Battery, White Point Gardens at the end of Meeting Street, Charleston, S.C."

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thanks, but that is not really evidence, just somebody asserting that a guy, whose name was not inscribed on a commemorative monument, was black.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"our country's thirteen states"

To what country do you refer?

[MACVSOG68]

I'm half way through your book. Love it. From some of the posts I've seen on this topic, it should be mandatory reading for anyone considering himself a Republican. I'm hoping your book will answer a question I've had for years: How did so many "conservatives" become so enthralled with the Confederacy"? I know it's a topsy turvy world, but I can't find a Democrat anywhere who defends slavery, the Confederacy or attempts to place this blot on our history on a pedestal. Yet there are numerous "states rights" conservatives continually ready to take up the cause.

Keep up the good work!

[PeaRidge]

www.thehunley.com gives the following: link to Newsletter 29 http://www.thehunley.com/Newsletter/newsletter29-emailed.htm
"Two men of the Hunley were found stacked together in one grave, one of them being Absolum Williams"
The forensics confirmed that Absolum was black. Research shows he was in the Confederate States Navy and that he was a volunteer from the Palmetto State.
There was also an article about it in the Civil War Times.
Another place that it is mentioned is Mark Ragan's book.. The Hunley: Submarines, Sacrifice, & Success in the Civil War

“From the book of pay receipts issued to the crew of the C.S.S. Palmetto State for the months of July and August, 1863, we find the following entry penned next to the name of Absolum Williams: Drowned in submarine batter on 29th August, 1863. With the name of this fifth unfortunate crew man at last having come to light, perhaps one day Williams’ name can be inscribed next to those of his comrades on the Hunley monument at the foot of Meeting Street in Charleston.” (Ragan,1995)

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thanks!! You are just the sort of intelligent Republican for whom I wrote the book. The book does indeed address why so many conservatives became enthralled with the Confederacy. Do let me know your impressions.

[Grand Old Partisan]

I'd like to believe there is more proof than some DNA examination. No one at the time ever mentioned that a rebel crewman was black? That should have been astounding back then and there.

[MACVSOG68]

The book does indeed address why so many conservatives became enthralled with the Confederacy. Do let me know your impressions.

Looking forward to it. Thanks again. BTW, go easy on warchild9. He doesn't know who he's up against!

[an amused spectator]

I know it's a topsy turvy world, but I can't find a Democrat anywhere who defends slavery, the Confederacy or attempts to place this blot on our history on a pedestal.

The Democrats who enslaved the blacks on the Southern plantations realized after the war that the percentages were better for them in the big-city plantations. ;-)

[Rocket1968]

These particular sailors have a very special place in history. They were the first to successfully use a submarine to sink an enemy vessel. They showed a very unique kind of valor and bravery. They knew that the risks were enormous, but chose to do it anyway. We should honor them for what they accomplished and ultimately sacrificed. It should not matter what the cause was. Politcal correctness is diminishing our ability to accurately learn about and from our historical past. Our zeal for inclusiveness and diversity is dividing us further. We cannot ignore our past. Our past has influenced our present and will influence our future.

[Non-Sequitur]

To what country do you refer?

Oz.

[Grand Old Partisan]

That "enemy vessel" was a ship in the United States Navy, as was the ship those terrorists rammed with a speedboat in Yemen.

[Rocket1968]

I don't want to broaden this to a discussion of the Civil War, but will say this, the main issue was states rights vs the power of the federal government. Slavery was the route cause, but the southern states resented the expanding role of Washington in their affairs.

I do not condone slavery. I agree that this issue was so important that it was probably inevitable that conflict would occur. In that context alone, the U.S. Navy was the "enemy" to the seceeding states, thus my description.

My point was to focus on the historical event as a precedent. We should give these events the emphasis they deserve, whether we agree with the event or not.

As an aside, there is a growing concern in this country about the expanding reach of the federal government. We are assaulted almost daily with restrictions of our freedom. We are becoming a very polarized country. Look at the red states vs the blue states and ask yourself if another Civil War is possible?

That is why, I think it is important to remember those individuals who took a stand. Whether it was right or wrong can be interpreted in many ways. What we shouldn't do is to dismiss their heroism because we do agree with the stance they took.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thanks for your thoughtful message. I appreciate the tone, as some FReepers can get unreasonable on this topic.

Withou rehashing so many previous threads, it bears noting that the Confederate government was far more centralized and powerful relative to the states than was the federal government until the 1930s. Also, civil liberties were much more infringed upon in the Confederacy than they were in the North at the time.

I am more for state and local autonomy than even most FReepers, but use of the term "states rights" (coined by John Calhoun as a euphemism for the right to oppress black people) and of Confederate ideology are certain losers, as experience has shown.

[PeaRidge]

"some FReepers can get unreasonable on this topic." as well as do you by virtue of your comments:

"the Confederate government was far more centralized and powerful relative to the states than was the federal government"

Not true. At the time of the creation of the Confederate government in 2/61, befitting the new Confederacy’s claim to represent the true principles of the US Constitution which Northern politicians had trampled upon, most of the provisional constitution was copied verbatim from the original document. So, in principle and on paper, it was no more restrictive than the US Constitution.

In the preamble to the Confederate Constitution, the framers implicitly allowed for secession by emphasizing the understanding of each State’s sovereign status.

The issue of States’ rights as a major cause of the secession of the Southern States became clear in the issue of the Confederate States Supreme Court. Although Article III of the C. S. Constitution established the Supreme Court, federal encroachment upon States’ rights fostered by rulings of the US Supreme Court were still fresh in the minds of the C.S. Congress.

As a result of this, the actual establishment of the C.S. Supreme Court never took place. Thus, there was no opportunity for a Supreme Court to give itself the power to interpret the Constitutionality of action of other government branches and people as had happened in the Union.

As in the United States, the federal government of the Confederate States was prohibited from interfering with slavery within the States. The States of the Confederacy, however, were not constitutionally required to recognize or continue the practice of slavery within their own borders.

The consensus, as voiced by Senator Albert G. Brown of Mississippi, was that “each state is sovereign within its own limits; and that each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself”.

Governmental intervention was less, taxes were lower, the President was limited to one term, and the general welfare clause allowing for government to business subsidy was eliminated.

So, there was a very big difference after all. Your contention is bogus.

And regarding this whopper------"but use of the term 'states rights' (coined by John Calhoun as a euphemism for the right to oppress black people)"---you well know that the term was coined in the debates held in the meetings on the Articles of Confederation, ten years before Calhoun was born.

[PeaRidge]

"I'd like to believe there is more proof than some DNA examination."

And so did the O. J. jury when they were provided the proof.

"No one at the time ever mentioned that a rebel crewman was black? That should have been astounding back then and there."

If you knew something about the South of the period, you would realize that your statement is more astounding than the presence of a negro soldier or sailor.

You have at some point got to realize that in 1860, whites and blacks worked side by side. There was very little violence. Each had his job and family.

There was racism everywhere. North and South. Among blacks and whites, and Indians. Jews and Catholics were berated in New England and New York. The Irish were hated practically everywhere they lived. That was the thinking of the time.

When Lincoln brought the war to the South, negroes went off to fight. Some wore uniforms, some didn't. Some carried rifles, some drove wagons, or built railroads. Some were officially in the war, some were not.

The presence of a black man in the Hunley was a normal event. By being surprised, you reveal your racist bias against the South, then and now. You are no historian.